2008460 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Thai national. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Thailand due to his past political opinions, including participation in protests and criticism of the government on social media, following the failure of his small business. He alleged threats to his family and himself if returned to Thailand, including interrogation, torture, and charges under Article 112. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 or eligible for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa).

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's credibility, noting significant inconsistencies between his initial application and his evidence presented to the Tribunal. These discrepancies related to the reasons for his fear of return, his past experiences in Thailand, and his employment history. The Tribunal found that his voluntary return to Thailand in 2016 and subsequent renewal of his passport in 2017 contradicted his claims of fearing persecution. Furthermore, while acknowledging the applicant's recent social media posts critical of the Thai government, the Tribunal found them to be limited in number, from a private account, and insufficient to establish a real risk of harm, particularly in light of country information indicating such measures are typically used against high-profile critics. The Tribunal also considered and rejected the claim of fear under Article 112, finding no evidence that the applicant's profile would attract such charges.

Based on the adverse credibility assessment stemming from the numerous inconsistencies and omissions in the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant was an unreliable witness and had not provided a truthful account of his circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had actively participated in political activities that would place him at risk upon return, nor that his recent social media activity posed a foreseeable risk of harm. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.