2016362 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed a decision not to grant a protection visa to an applicant who claimed to be a national of Thailand. The applicant's claims were based on alleged persecution due to political opinion, stemming from online campaigning in the context of a military coup in Thailand. The applicant did not attend a scheduled hearing before the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically whether he was a refugee or entitled to complementary protection. This required determining if he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Thailand. The Tribunal also had to consider the implications of the applicant's non-attendance at the hearing.

The Tribunal applied section 426A of the Migration Act, which permits a decision to be made without further steps to enable an applicant to appear if they fail to attend an invited hearing. The Tribunal noted that the onus is on the applicant to establish all statutory elements of their claim and provide sufficient evidence, and that a decision-maker is not obliged to make the applicant's case for them. Citing *BZADA v MIC and RRT* [2013] FCA 1062, the Tribunal held that without the applicant's attendance, it could not test or examine his claims, and therefore could not reach the requisite level of satisfaction to grant the visa.

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