2203007 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a protection visa to an applicant who failed to attend a hearing. The applicant claimed to have clashed with a restaurateur involved in drug and prostitution trafficking, alleging police complicity. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant qualified for protection as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds.

The central legal issues were whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Thailand. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information assessments.

The Tribunal reasoned that the mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or well-foundedness, nor does it prove a real risk of significant harm. It is incumbent upon the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy all statutory elements of their claim, and the Tribunal is not obliged to construct or assist in establishing the case. The applicant's claims regarding the restaurateur and police complicity were found to be unsupported and lacking the necessary detail to assess a nexus with the criteria for a well-founded fear of persecution. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under either refugee or complementary protection grounds.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.