2201779 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming to have borrowed money from a potentially unscrupulous lender. The case came before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with Member Luke Hardy presiding. The central dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either on refugee grounds or complementary protection grounds.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm if removed from Australia to Thailand. The Tribunal also considered its obligations regarding the applicant's case and evidence.

Member Hardy reasoned that the mere assertion of fear or risk does not satisfy the statutory requirements; the applicant bears the onus of providing sufficient evidence to establish their claim. In this instance, the applicant provided no supporting material for their claims regarding the lender. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or that they faced a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal applied the principles that decision-makers are not required to build an applicant's case and that allegations must be supported by evidence, referencing *MIEA v Guo* and *Prasad v MIEA*.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958*.