2008797 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming to have left Thailand due to a distrust of the judiciary, poor governance, and the impact of the global economy on the nation's economy, leading to poverty and unemployment. The applicant stated that as a result of these conditions, they had to borrow money and were unable to repay debts, causing mental distress and fear, with others who borrowed money having been injured or killed. The applicant's claims were considered by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), which concerns complementary protection due to a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's claims of having experienced harm, their reasons for not seeking help within Thailand, and their inability to relocate within the country.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's claims of harm were not clearly expressed and contained significant gaps in detail. While the applicant stated they had received verbal threats and lived in hardship due to the bad economy, they did not articulate a fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as required by section 5J of the Act. Furthermore, the applicant indicated that the problems they faced, including debt and potential harm from creditors, were socio-economic issues affecting the general population of Thailand, and that authorities could not protect them due to these systemic issues. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a) and also did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), as the stated risks were not sufficiently particularised or linked to the specific grounds for protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.