2007951 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Thai citizen, sought a protection visa, claiming he would face serious harm from Thai authorities upon return due to his opposition to the military government. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under Australian law. The matter was heard by Louise Nicholls, a Senior Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by having a well-founded fear of persecution, or alternatively, whether he was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the statutory definitions of "refugee" and "significant harm," considering the evidence presented and the applicant's responsibility to establish his case.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It found that the applicant's claims lacked sufficient detail to be substantiated and were vague, particularly given his failure to attend a second hearing with an interpreter. The Tribunal reiterated that the onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to establish their claim, and a decision-maker is not obligated to construct the case for them. The applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion as his claims were not sufficiently particularised or tested, nor did he establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no basis for complementary protection, as the applicant had not demonstrated a real risk of significant harm.