2009058 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse her a protection visa. The applicant claimed to be a member of the Red Shirt political organisation in Thailand and alleged she had engaged in protests and online political activity against the military government. She stated she had been arrested and questioned but not harmed, and feared she would be arrested and killed if returned to Thailand. The applicant arrived in Australia in December 2014 and applied for a protection visa nearly four and a half years later, having been without a visa for approximately two years prior to her application.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, and whether she would suffer significant harm if returned to Thailand. The court was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of the provided country information, the applicant's failure to respond to requests for further information from the Department, and the applicant's substantial delay in lodging her protection visa application.

The court considered the applicant's claims that she was involved in the Red Shirt movement and feared arrest and death if returned to Thailand. However, the applicant had not experienced harm in the past and had not provided further information to substantiate her claims despite requests. Country information indicated that while Red Shirt supporters had faced arrests after a 2014 coup, prominent politically active Red Shirts were at low risk of official discrimination. The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, particularly given her delay in applying and her failure to respond to requests for further information. The court noted that the applicant did not satisfy any of the criteria in section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.

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