2008054 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by two applicants who had arrived in Australia in July 2019. The applicants claimed they feared persecution upon return to Thailand due to poor economic conditions, general corruption, and outstanding debts to a creditor who had become angry with them. The delegate had refused the applications, finding that the applicants would be afforded protection by Thai authorities and therefore did not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to review this decision.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as refugees, or under section 36(2)(aa) as persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal. The Tribunal also had regard to the definitions of "refugee," "well-founded fear of persecution," and "significant harm" as set out in the Act, as well as Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicants had not satisfied the onus of establishing a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal noted the importance of adopting a reasonable approach to credibility findings but concluded that the applicants' evidence was vague and inconsistent, raising credibility issues. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicants, meaning they did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under either section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa).