2109748 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the claims of two visa applicants seeking protection visas for Australia. The applicants alleged they had borrowed money from loan sharks in Thailand, who subsequently increased interest rates, created fraudulent loan contracts, and resorted to threats of death when payments were not made. The applicants claimed they had attempted to relocate within Thailand to escape these creditors but were followed due to the creditors' influence and networks. They expressed a fear of being killed if returned to Thailand, believing the creditors' power would prevent any assistance from authorities.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the visa applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons outlined in section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958, and whether there was a real chance they would suffer serious harm if returned to Thailand. Alternatively, the Tribunal was required to assess whether the applicants met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which involves a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The Tribunal also considered the relevance of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, and Complementary Protection Guidelines.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the credibility of the applicants' claims and the availability of protection within Thailand. While acknowledging the applicants' stated fear of persecution by loan sharks, the Tribunal found a lack of corroborative evidence to support these claims. The applicants had not experienced harm in their country of origin, and their attempts to relocate within Thailand were unsuccessful in establishing a basis for a well-founded fear of persecution that could not be mitigated by internal relocation. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for being a member of a particular social group as defined by the Act, nor did they demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicants protection visas. The applicants did not meet the criteria for refugee status under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act, nor did they satisfy the requirements for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to grant the protection visas.