2010472 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Thailand. The applicant claimed to fear harm, but the Tribunal ultimately affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which includes both refugee and complementary protection grounds. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims of fear of harm, the genuineness and well-foundedness of that fear, and whether such fear was for a prescribed reason. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant could safely and reasonably relocate within Thailand.

The Tribunal reasoned that while it accepted the applicant was a citizen of Thailand, the mere assertion of fear of harm was insufficient to establish its genuineness or that it was well-founded for a prescribed reason. The applicant had not provided sufficient detail to satisfy the Tribunal of a personal intention to harm her for a prescribed reason. Furthermore, even if the claimed threats were accepted, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant could not safely and reasonably relocate within Thailand. The Tribunal applied the principle that the onus rests on the applicant to provide sufficient detail to enable the decision-maker to establish the facts, and that a decision-maker is not required to construct the applicant's case. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had consented to a decision being made on the papers, waiving her right to a hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.