2203003 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by an individual who claimed to fear persecution in Thailand. The applicant alleged that her former boss had threatened her with death and subjected her to abuse and physical harm after she refused to deliver illegal drugs for him. She also claimed that local authorities were too fearful of her boss's influence to provide assistance and that relocation within Thailand would not be possible due to his extensive network.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether she met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa). This required the Tribunal to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or if there were substantial grounds for believing she faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Thailand.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's claims, while serious, were unsupported and generalised. It emphasised that the onus was on the applicant to provide sufficient particulars and evidence to establish her case, and that a decision-maker was not obliged to construct the applicant's case for her. The Tribunal noted the need for more specific details regarding the alleged events and the current situation, and that an oral exchange would have been beneficial to test the claims. Applying the principles from cases such as *MIEA v Guo* and *Prasad v MIEA*, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory elements for either refugee status or complementary protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Thailand.