2010472 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 5018

2010472 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 5018 (16 November 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2010472

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Thailand

MEMBER:Mr S Norman

DATE:16 November 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 16 November 2021 at 10:00am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Thailand – poor economy of the country – financial hardship – economic reasons – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 426A, 499

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES

MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 144 ALR 567
Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Randhawa v MIEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 12 June 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Thailand, applied for the visa on 12 October 2019. The Department delegate’s decision was not lodged with the Tribunal.

   Criteria for a protection visa

2. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

   Mandatory considerations

3. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidence

4. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

5. By hearing invitation letter dated 11 November 2021 (dispatched by email), the Tribunal advised the applicant it had considered all the material before it relating to her application, but it was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the applicant to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 3 March 2021. The applicant was advised that if she did not attend the hearing and a postponement was not granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on her case without further notice.

6. By email dated 15 November 2021, the applicant responded to the Tribunal hearing invitation and advised she did not propose to participate in the hearing and that she consented to the Tribunal making a decision on the papers.

7. Therefore, and pursuant to s.426A of the Act, the Tribunal has decided to make its decision on the review without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it.

   The applicant’s claims:

8. The applicant claimed:[1]

   Assessing the applicant’s claims:

   [1] PDF – from p.29.

9. The applicant lodged a photocopy of the biodata page of her Thai passport.[2] The Tribunal accepts the applicant is a citizen of Thailand, and that Thailand is her receiving country. However, the mere fact that an applicant claims to fear harm for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason/s claimed. Further, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant (Randhawa v MIEA (1994) 52 FCR 437, p.451). That said, the applicant did not provide sufficient detail to satisfy the Tribunal she feared harm for a prescribed reason, or that (ie) there is any intention to harm the applicant personally. In the alternative, and even if the applicant was threatened for the reasons she claimed, based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal was not satisfied she could not safely and reasonably relocate within Thailand.

   [2] PDF – P.36, p.37.

10. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements for the grant of protection are made out (MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 144 ALR 567 p.596); and although the concept of the onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision making (Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275 p.288), the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant themselves, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the decision maker to establish the facts. A decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for him or her (Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 pp.169-70; Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39 p.45). The Tribunal acknowledges this guidance had been developed for the purposes of considering refugee protection claims, however, I am satisfied it is materially applicable to the assessment of complementary protection claims.

11. That being said, based on the claims she has provided, the Tribunal is not satisfied all the statutory elements for the grant of protection are made out. Accordingly, I do not accept the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason prescribed in the Act; or that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Thailand, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm.

12. Neither is there any issue, squarely raised by the evidence though not articulated, that has satisfied the Tribunal the applicant has a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm in Thailand.    

    Finding:

13. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a). Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). However, and for the same reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

14. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).  

    decision

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

    Mr S Norman
    Member