2012679 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Thailand, sought a protection visa in Australia. The dispute concerned whether Australia had protection obligations towards her, given her fear of harm upon return to Thailand following a military takeover and her husband's past involvement in a "Red Shirt" protest. The applicant herself had not been politically active and had not personally experienced harm in Thailand.

The court was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958. This involved assessing whether she was a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal to Thailand, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal considered evidence regarding the applicant's identity and country of reference, accepting Thailand as the country of reference. It noted that the applicant's fear stemmed from her husband's single participation in a 2014 Red Shirt protest and the general political climate after the military takeover. However, the Tribunal also had regard to Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) assessments indicating that while authorities might record involvement in historical protests, prosecutions were unlikely for low-level participants, and those continuing to be politically active faced a higher risk. Given the applicant's lack of personal political activity and her husband's limited and past involvement, the Tribunal concluded that she did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, nor did she face a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal noted that the applicant could still make a request directly to the Minister for intervention.