2204403 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 2084

2204403 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 2084 (28 August 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2204403
Tribunal:General Member S Dhillon
Date:28 August 2025

Place:Sydney
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 28 August 2025 at 7:42pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Thailand – political opinion – supporting father’s political profile – father won local election – intimidation, harassment and violence from political rivals – gun fired at family home, car vandalised, followed, and threatened with car accident – fears violent retaliation, assault, surveillance, harassment, psychological trauma and death – delay in applying for protection – father retired and moved country – significant passage of time since political involvement – no evidence of threats – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J–5LA, 36, 65, 369, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 24 March 2022 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who is a national of Thailand, applied for the visa on 17 January 2021.
BACKGROUND
Evidence before the Department
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that they were not satisfied there was a real chance the applicant would be persecuted due to his political opinion if he returned to Thailand.
In the statement accompanying his Protection visa application, the applicant stated he cannot return to Thailand because he comes from a family involved in local politics, in [year] his father won a local election and his victory created deep hostility within rival political groups who had invested large sums of money and expected to win, and following the election his family became the target of intimidation, harassment and violent behaviour from rival political factions. The applicant states he was personally targeted due to his close association with his father and his safety was under serious threat. The applicant claims he personally experienced intimidation, including being followed, ‘secretly assaulted’ while walking to and from work, his family members were harmed, their car was vandalised, unknown individuals walked around his house, and rival groups threatened to cause car accidents. The applicant claims this was carried out by political rivals claimed to be affiliated with the Red Shirt movement who viewed his family as a part of the Yellow Shirt movement, and that he did not attempt to seek help from the authorities in Thailand as it would be pointless and the people threatening his family had strong political connections including over the police and local government. In the past when his family reported incidents, no action was taken and sometimes the information they shared reached the people who were threatening them. The applicant claimed to fear violent retaliation, assault, surveillance, harassment, psychological trauma, or death upon returning to Thailand.
The applicant was not invited to an interview before the Department and a decision was made based on the information contained in the Protection Visa application and accompanying statement.
The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that they were not satisfied the applicant was considered by the Thai authorities or government to be a high-level political opponent, political activist, or renown human rights defenders which would cause them to be persecuted by the authorities or other groups in Thailand. The delegate was not satisfied there was a real chance the applicant would be persecuted on the basis of their political opinion in the reasonably foreseeable future. The delegate further found there was not a real risk the applicant would face a real risk of significant harm based on their actual or imputed political opinion and was not owed complementary protection.
Evidence before the Tribunal
On 27 June 2025, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing on 1 August 2025.
Prior to the Tribunal hearing, on 8 July 2025, the applicant sent a ‘Pre-hearing Information response’ to the Tribunal confirming he would attend, along with a statement dated 21 January 2021 which he previously provided to the Department. Other than this, no new submissions or evidence were received from the applicant prior to the Tribunal hearing.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 1 August 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Thai and English languages.
After the hearing, on 11 August 2025, the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal explaining that he had been unable to locate any further evidence and stating that ‘more than 10 years later, the other party has continued to call and threaten my parents who live in [Country 1]. My parents are concerned for my safety and are worried about me if I return to Thailand.’ The applicant also reiterated he wishes to remain in Australia as he feels safe, and is away from threats or crime, and does not feel fear or anxiety.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
Receiving country
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Thailand and no other country. He presented a passport at hearing which has been issued by the authorities of Thailand which records his nationality as Thai. I accept the applicant is a citizen of Thailand and Thailand is the receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
The issue in this case is whether the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm, based on his father’s political profile, or for any other reason. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Evidence at hearing
During the hearing, the applicant provided evidence in relation to his previous addresses in Thailand, his employment, his work history, family, political views, political involvement in Thailand, and his claims to fear harm. The applicant’s evidence is summarised as relevant below
The applicant arrived in Australia in October 2013 on a Student visa. He returned to Thailand in April 2014 to visit his family.
The applicant applied for the Protection visa in January 2021, with the help of a friend who assisted the applicant to translate his statement from Thai to English. The applicant confirmed he was aware of the contents of the application and did not have any updates or corrections to make to the information contained in his application. When asked who told him about applying for a Protection visa, the applicant said the Thai embassy advised him to do so when he went there to apply for a new national identity card.
The applicant gave evidence that he is single. His mother and father moved to [Country 1] two years ago and are not working anymore and the applicant speaks with them approximately twice a month. The applicant also has a [sibling] in Chiang Mai, Thailand, who works as [an Occupation 1].
The applicant resided in [District 1], Phayao Province in Thailand from birth until he was around [age] years old. He then travelled to [Country 2] in 2007 or 2008 to work in [Workplace 1] and remained there for five years. He returned to Thailand and lived at his family home for eight to nine months before departing for Australia.
The applicant is currently working in [Industry 1] five days a week. He has also worked for [Workplaces 2 and 3] since arriving in Australia.
When asked his reasons for fearing harm in Thailand, the applicant said due to some things with local politics that happened in early [year] after his father was elected to be the representative member of the local organisation, and his political opponents who had influence and financial power were dissatisfied his father was elected and tried to pressure them and indirectly physically assault them. The applicant said his father was on the ‘Yellow Shirts’ side, as was he, whereas the opposing party was the ‘Red Shirts’ side.
Harm arising from father’s political profile
The applicant gave evidence that his father, [Father A], was elected as the member of [Council 1] in approximately [month, year]. This council had more than 10 members from the province. His father belongs to the Yellow Shirt party. His father became involved in politics after being elected to the provincial council and then he moved a step up in the Yellow Shirt party. His father won the election because he received votes from people because of his ideology to protect the local community where he lived. When asked if he was well known the applicant said his father conducted himself in a way that was beneficial and devoted time to work run by [Charity 1] on a routine basis so he received support from others, and he opposed the Red Shirt’s movements to dethrone he monarchy. His father attended council meetings every quarter. When asked about the length of his father’s term, the applicant said his father was elected from February for eight to nine and was then pressured by the opposition who had influence and resigned from the position in [month, year]. His father then returned to work in [Industry 2]. People were still encouraging his father to run again, and in [month, year], after the applicant arrived in Australia, his father stood for the election again and was successful for another year long term. The applicant’s father completed the second term and stopped serving on the council in [month, year]. He did not stand for election or rejoin after this. He then became a consultant for the younger individuals who were seeking to become elected.
The applicant stated he did not have any supporting evidence relating to his father’s involvement, such as any paperwork, and said he was not sure if whether those documents were brought with his father to [Country 1] or if they were still in Thailand.
In relation to the individuals who opposed his father, the applicant gave evidence that the opposing Red Shirt party members harassed his family and tried to physically assault them, and when he and his father complained about it to the government the information was sent to the opposing party and they were the subject of malicious activities.
In terms of his own political views and involvement while in Thailand, the applicant said he was involved as a person who shared the ideology of the Yellow Shirts and as a supporter, and he had supported and assisted his father in all aspects of his work. When asked if he was a member of the Yellow Shirts party himself, the applicant confirmed he was not, he was assisting his father.
When asked to describe the harm he claimed to have experienced between his father’s election to the local council in [month, year], until his departure, the applicant recounted a number of incidents:
a.    On the day the applicant was due to travel from Bangkok to Australia the Red Shirt supporters/opposing party knew about his movements because they knew someone or have broad influence everywhere. When the applicant was boarding a taxi to go to the airport he was approached by three men who assaulted him by using a piece of wood to hit him over the head. The applicant was able to run and get into the taxi to go to the airport. When asked how they found him in Bangkok, the applicant said because they would have followed him from his home.
b.    In [month/year], a gun was fired outside the applicant’s family home which caused their window to be shattered. This occurred when they were arriving home at night after a charity event. The gunfire came from vehicles parked outside their home, and they also threw rocks, although the applicant was unsure how many individuals were there. The applicant’s mother injured herself when as she was hurrying to take cover, but other than this no one else was injured.
c.     When the applicant’s family travelled to attend charity or [Charity 1] events in the centre of the province or in Bangkok, there would be someone following them and ‘waiting to assault them’. The applicant said they were followed in this way approximately four times between his father being elected and him coming to Australia. The applicant did not claim anyone had actually been physically harmed on any of these occasions.
When asked if they ever reported the harassment to the police, the applicant said they had on occasions they reported the incidents to the local Phayao police, such as after the incident in [month, year] with gunshots. However, they did not receive assistance as the police only acknowledged the report and said they would take action, but a month passed and there was no progress. The information from the report was then sent to the opposing party which made everything worse, as they became the subjects of potential assault and were threatened. When asked why he thought the police had leaked the report, the applicant said that their opponents wrote a letter in around [month, year] threatening his family and the letter included the information they had told the police.
When asked if anything happened to his family after he came to Australia, the applicant said his father was assaulted in around March or April 2014. When asked for more detail, the applicant said he went to attend a meeting and he stopped to offer assistance at a [Charity 1] event and there were a group of people who were making loud noises and waiting to assault and ambush him when he came back from that event. The applicant said this was according to what his father told him.
The applicant claimed they also received threats over social media, such as [Social media 1]. He said he received a threat approximately one month after he arrived in Australia, that they would find him if he returned to Thailand and they will assault him or take his life. Aside from this the applicant did not receive any further contact, however, his family continued to receive threatening letters and messages until around 2020. When asked if he had screenshots of these messages the applicant said he did not because it occurred over ten years ago. When asked if he could access his [Social media 1] account to access them, the applicant said it was his old [Social media 1] account.
When asked why his father’s political opponents would continue to threaten his family given his father had retired from politics in [year], the applicant because his father was still an advisor for the next generation of people who would like to be elected. When asked what kind of threats, the applicant said it involved damaging his car when the car was parked somewhere, writing a letter and posting in front of the house, and threatening telephone calls. The applicant stated this occurred between [year] until 2020. When asked if his family had received any threats, letters or contact since 2020, the applicant confirmed they had not but at this time they were also arranging to go to [Country 1]. As discussed below, later in the hearing, the applicant then said his parents received a threatening letter two months after they arrived in [Country 1].
When asked if anything happened to his [sibling] who also lived in Thailand, the applicant said no but [he/she] worked in Chiang Mai and didn’t get involved in politics and lived separately. When asked what had happened to his family home now the applicant said there is nobody in the house at the moment.
When asked for details of the people carrying out the harassment, the applicant provided the name ‘[Rival A]’ and said this person was a member of the Red Shirt party. When asked to describe his position in the party, the applicant said he is an ‘underling of a leader - he’s not a major figure but he is the head of the leaders – he is a person within that group who was both the head and the leader.’ When asked how this person knew the applicant’s family, the applicant said he held ideologies and had a policy in opposition to his family and father, and he had another influential person who was his boss and that person (the boss) was the one who ordered him to do those things and he ([Rival A]) received renumeration for doing so. When asked how this person was able to influence the police or authorities, the applicant said because he was working for the big boss. The applicant did not provide the name of the boss within the Red Shirt’s party who he claimed had ordered these actions against his family. The applicant said the person who will try to harm him in the future is [Rival A], and that he resides in Chaing Mai and Phayao.
Fear of future harm

When asked what harm he feared in the future, the applicant said if he returns to Thailand it is about his safety, he will be living his life under apprehension, he doesn’t have any confidence in the work of the government authorities, and also he is concerned about his career opportunities as the work there is not stable. The applicant also added that he will be by himself and has no support so in his mind there would be no one for him to consult with as his parents aren’t there.
I put to the applicant that the events he described occurred a long time ago, that he had not been in the country since 2013, and his evidence had been that his father had retired from politics in [year] and queried why he would still be of interest if he returned to Thailand over ten years later. The applicant responded that he still has confidence that the people that wanted to harm his family are still waiting for him. When asked why, the applicant said because his boss doesn’t like his family. When asked how they would know if he returned, the applicant said because they are split into groups and reside everywhere.
I reminded the Tribunal that his evidence had been that his [sibling] lived in Chiangmai and had not been harmed and queried why he wouldn’t be able to live in another area where it would be safe. The applicant said he would not be able to reside in Thailand at all even with his [sibling] as [he/she] would be concerned that something bad might happen to [his/her] family.
Toward the end of the hearing, I put to the applicant that there was very little detail for me to understand why anyone would want to harm him because of his father’s political position, especially given he has now retired, and that it has been around twelve years since the applicant left Thailand and given the passage of time it was difficult to see why the opposition party would have any interest in him. The applicant responded that he has a feeling that it is safe here and without crime or political attacks here, in Thailand now the economic conditions are bad, and the thing he fears the most is that he might be subject to being killed according to the threats. When asked why they would want to kill the applicant given his own evidence was that he had not been contacted for twelve years, the applicant repeated his evidence that they had contacted him through social media within one month after coming to Australia and then stopped, but they threatened his family instead. The applicant then said that his parents received threats over social media from one person when they went to [Country 1]. I reminded the applicant that earlier in the hearing his evidence had been that the threats to his parents stopped in 2020. The applicant responded that after his family travelled to [Country 1] ad after approximately two months a threatening letter was sent to them over [Social media 1], which said if his parents or the applicant returned to Thailand they will kill/eliminate them. I asked the applicant if he had evidence of this threat, such as a screenshot, given he claimed it was sent over [Social media 1] a few years ago. The applicant said his father had sent him some evidence from two years ago and he received the letter one or two months after going to [Country 1]. I requested the applicant provide a screenshot or the evidence of this threat to the Tribunal within seven days. However, as set out above, the applicant did not provide this, but emailed the Tribunal relevantly stating ‘more than 10 years later, the other party has continued to call and threaten my parents who live in [Country 1].’
I also discussed relevant country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report[1] (‘DFAT Country Report’) with the applicant, specifically, that although there was intense conflict between the Yellow Shirts and Red Shirts for approximately a decade form 2005-2006,[2] this had largely decreased in recent years and queried why he would be of interest as the son of a former Yellow Shirts politician. The applicant responded that he felt apprehensive and afraid because they have influence, there are many people who knew his father and himself, and if he returned now he will be a target, they will be aware of his return and will be able to find him.
[1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report – Thailand, 18 December 2023.
[2] Ibid, [3.42].
I then discussed the applicant’s delay in lodging his application and noted he had arrived in Australia in October 2013 but did not lodge his application until nearly seven years later in January 2021, and even after he completed his studies in Australia in January 2016 he still did not lodge his application until five years after that despite claiming to fear harm in Thailand. The applicant acknowledged that he did not lodge the application after completing his studies and said that he did not have a visa but was unable to return to Thailand because of his fears, but then when he went to the embassy to review his passport they advised him to lodge the application. I note the applicant’s evidence in this respect was consistent with his evidence at the beginning of the hearing that the Thai embassy advised him to lodge a Protection visa and that he was unaware of the possibility to do so prior to this. I accept this is a reasonable explanation for the applicant’s delay and I have not placed any adverse weight on his delay in applying for protection.
Findings
Applicant’s father’s political involvement
I found the applicant general to be a credible witness. I considered the applicant gave his evidence in a forthright and spontaneous manner. While I have concerns in relation to certain aspects of the applicant’s evidence, as discussed below, I generally accept the applicant provided an honest account of the events that occurred in Thailand prior to his departure in 2013.
The applicant provided detailed information in relation to his father’s involvement in local politics and his election to [Council 1]. Although the applicant did not provide any documentary evidence to support his father’s involvement in politics, based on the applicant’s oral evidence, I accept his father was elected as the member of the [Council 1] in approximately [month, year], as a result of an election held in the community. I accept the applicant’s father belonged to the ‘Yellow Shirt’ political party, promoted ideologies of the Yellow Shirts, was well known in the community, and opposed the Red Shirt movements. I accept the applicant’s father was pressured to resign from his position by the opposition party eight to nine months later in [month, year]. I accept the applicant’s father then ran for election and was elected again in [month, year], for another one-year term, and then completed this term and stopped serving on the council in [month, year]. I accept the applicant’s father did not stand for election or rejoin after this, but he continued to advise younger individuals who were seeking to become elected.
I accept the applicant’s evidence that he supported and assisted his father in his role as a Council member between his first election in [month, year] until his departure in October 2013.
I am satisfied on the evidence that members of the opposing party running against his father in the election, who were affiliated with the Red Shirt movement, were dissatisfied with his father’s election to [Council 1], and that this led to them harassing and pressuring the applicant’s family, including the applicant. I accept the applicant’s evidence that the person who sent people to threaten or harass the applicant’s family is called [Rival A].
I accept that the applicant’s family experienced harassment between his father’s election as a council member until the applicant departed Thailand in October 2024, including that their car was vandalised, family members including the applicant were followed, and threats were made towards the family, including that they would cause a car accident.
I have also considered the applicant’s evidence in relation to the specific claimed instances of past harm experienced by himself and his family. The applicant’s evidence in relation the claimed past harm was vague and repetitive at certain points. However, I accept that a significant period of time has passed since the claimed events occurred, and I accept this could account for a degree of vagueness in the applicant’ evidence. I also note that the applicant consistently stated throughout the hearing that his family members were followed on occasions by his father’s political rivals during the time he was serving on [Council 1]. Therefore, I accept the applicant’s family were followed by individuals when they travelled for events such as to the [Charity 1] centre or Bangkok, on approximately four separate occasions. However, I do not accept the applicant or his family were physically harmed on these four occasions. Although the applicant stated they followed and that these people ‘waited to assault’ his family, he did not claim that himself or any family members were physically harmed on any of these occasions.
I am satisfied on the evidence that sometime in [month, year], a gunshot was fired through the window of the applicant’s family home which came from individuals in a vehicle parked outside. The applicant was able to provide details such as the time and location of this incident and was forthcoming in stating that no one was injured aside from his mother who fell while trying to find cover when they heard the gunshot. I also accept that due to the passage of time that has passed and the applicant’s own evidence that they did not report all instances to the police, the applicant is unable to provide supporting evidence in relation to this incident.
Thirdly, I have considered the applicant’s claim that he was assaulted while getting into a taxi to travel to the airport in Bangkok in order to depart Thailand for Australia. Again, I have some concerns that the applicant’s evidence in relation to this incident was vague and general, and lacked specific details such as where he was in Bangkok when this occurred, how he ran from the individuals who assaulted him, and whether or what threats were made by the individuals. Whilst I have some reservations about the applicant’s claim that he was assaulted shortly before boarding his flight to depart Thailand given the limited detail in the applicant’s evidence, I note that the applicant referred to this incident a number of times at different points throughout the hearing. Based on my findings above that the applicant’s family was being watched and followed by Red Shirt supporters/his father’s political rivals, I am willing to accept the applicant was followed to Bangkok and assaulted by three men who hit him over the head with a wooden object as he tried to get into a taxi prior to his departure for Australia. However, the applicant was unable to explain how they would know he was departing Australia that day, other than to say they followed him from his home. I do not accept the individuals who assaulted the applicant because they knew he was due to depart for Australia and did so for that reason, rather, I consider they assaulted the applicant because they had been following him, as stated by the applicant, and saw an opportunity to assault him while he was on his own in Bangkok.
I am not satisfied the applicant’s father was physically assaulted in March or April 2014, after the applicant came to Australia. The applicant’s evidence on this point was that were a group of people who were making loud noises and waiting to assault and ambush him when he came back from that event. I am willing to accept there were people following his father and intimidating him by making loud noises and following him. However, the applicant’s evidence was that they were ‘waiting to assault him’ but not that he was actually assaulted or physically harmed. Therefore, I do not accept the applicant’s father was physically harmed or assaulted in March or April 2014.
The applicant consistently claimed in his protection visa statement and at hearing that his family made reports to the police, but they did not receive assistance. I note that relevant country information indicates that the effectiveness of Thai police at responding to criminal incidents varies and that corruption is an issue among the Thai police force.[3] Based on this country information and the applicant’s evidence, I accept the police did not take action as a result of any complaints lodged by the applicant’s family in relation to the harassment and threats they received. However, I do not accept that the police leaked the reports made by the applicant to [Rival A]. When asked why he believed this to be the case, the applicant said after they made police reports, they received threating letters and also because the police didn’t take any action. While I accept the applicant’s family received threatening letters, the applicant was unable to provide detail in relation to specifically what information the letters contained that led his family to believe that their police report had been leaked. Based on the applicant’s evidence, I do not accept the police leaked information to [Rival A] or that the applicant’s family received threatening letters specifically as a result of any leaked police reports, but rather, that those letters were sent as a part of their campaign to pressure the applicant’s father to resign from his position.
[3] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report – Thailand, 18 December 2023, [5.8].
Although the applicant did not provide any corroborative evidence, I am willing to accept he received one threat over [Social media 1], approximately one month after he arrived in Australia which was sent by a person he believes to be associated with [Rival A], warning him not to return to Thailand. On the basis of the applicant’s evidence, I am willing to accept the applicant’s family also received threats and harassment in the form of: threatening letters, phone calls, posting a letter in front of their home and damaging their car, until 2020. Based on the applicant’s evidence I am satisfied the motivation for this was initially due to the applicant’s father’s role on [Council 1], and later due to his continued involvement with local politics in the form of advising and mentor the younger generation in relation to local politics.
However, I do not accept the applicant’s family received any threats after 2020. Earlier in the hearing, the applicant’s initial evidence was that the threats towards his family ceased around 2020 and they were preparing to go to [Country 1]. Later in the hearing when I queried why [Rival A] would have any continuing interest in the applicant’s family given the passage of time that had passed since these events, and the applicant then added that his parents were threatened over social media after they went to [Country 1]. When I reminded the applicant of his earlier evidence that the threats had stopped in 2020, he repeated that his parents received a threatening letter approximately two months after they went to [Country 1]. At the start of the hearing, in the course of canvassing the applicant’s background, the applicant gave evidence that his parents moved to [Country 1] approximately two years ago, which would be around 2023. I am concerned in the inconsistency in the applicant’s evidence, in that he initially stated the threats towards his parents ceased in 2020 when they were preparing to go to [Country 1], and his later evidence that they received a threatening letter approximately two months after they moved to [Country 1] in 2023. I consider this to be a significant discrepancy, and I do not accept the applicant’s changing evidence in this respect. I note it was only after I raised my concerns that the applicant that he raised the further claimed threat to his parents. I also note that the applicant did not provide any corroborative evidence of this such as a screenshot, or evidence from his family members who received the threat, despite saying his father sent him evidence and being requested to provide this. Further, the applicant’s post hearing submissions stated that his parents received calls to threaten them, when he previously gave evidence at hearing that they received a threatening letter, which raises further concerns about this aspect of the applicant’s evidence. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied the applicant’s family received any threats after 2020, or any time after they moved to [Country 1].
I accept the applicant’s evidence that his [sibling] is safe in Chiang Mai as [he/she] did not get involved in politics and note the applicant’s consistent evidence was that it was he who supported his father in his political endeavours.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
Does the applicant face a real chance of harm due to his father’s past political involvement or profile?
As put to the applicant during the hearing, I had concerns with about the applicant’s claim that [Rival A] or anyone associated with him or the Red Shirts would be waiting for him or seek to harm him if he returned to Thailand now or in the foreseeable future, particularly given his inability to explain why they would be seeking to harm him given the significant period of time that has elapsed since his father was involved in politics and his own absence from Thailand. I put to the applicant that the events he described occurred a long time ago, that he had not been in the country since 2013, his evidence had been that his father had retired from politics in [year] and was not involved in politics in any formal capacity after this, and queried why he would still be of interest if he returned to Thailand now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The applicant reiterated in response that he was worried for his safety and felt apprehensive, that he doesn’t have confidence in the government authorities there and those people do not like his family. The applicant responded that he still has confidence that the people that wanted to harm his family are still waiting for him. When asked why, the applicant said because his boss doesn’t like his family. When asked how they would know if he returned, the applicant said because they are split into groups and reside at everywhere.
I have considered the applicant’s evidence and I accept he feels safer in Australia and holds a subjective fear that he could be harassed, threatened or harmed if he returns to Thailand by [Rival A] or people associated with him. However, based on the applicant’s own evidence, I consider the applicant also holds concerns in relation to economic and career opportunities in Thailand, and this also forms the basis for him claiming protection in Australia.
I note that s 5J(1)(b) of the Act imposes an objective standard, that there must be a real chance of that fear being realised and the person being persecuted. I have considered the applicant’s evidence that members of the rival political group are waiting for him, they would know if he returned, and that he fears being threatened and killed. While I accept that [Rival A] or people associated with him may become aware of the applicant’s return to Phayao, I consider his evidence that they would seek to threaten and kill him to be speculative. The applicant was unable to articulate in any detail why these people would continue to be interested in him, and his statements that they do not like his family and would be waiting to harm him did not overcome my concerns.
Due to the significant passage of time, I do not accept that [Rival A] or people associated with him would have any continuing interest in the applicant. I note that the harm the applicant experienced, as well as the single threat he received, occurred in approximately October 2013. The applicant’s evidence was that he has not received any threats since this time. I have also found above that the applicant’s parents did not receive any threats after 2020. According to the applicant’s evidence that his parents departed for [Country 1] approximately two years ago, this would mean the applicant’s parents continued to live in Phayao for a period of approximately three years between 2020 and 2023 where they did not receive threats or contact from his father’s political opponents or anyone associated with [Rival A] prior to their departure to [Country 1]. This supports a finding that [Rival A] had lost interest in the applicant’s father and their family from 2020 onwards. Therefore, on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied [Rival A] or anyone associated with him has any continuing interest in the applicant or his family.

When I raised with the applicant my overall concerns that I may find he does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm on return to Thailand in the reasonably foreseeable future from his father’s political opponents, including [Rival A] or anyone associated with him, the applicant raised his desire to continue remaining in Australia as he feels safe. The applicant’s response did not overcome my concerns.
Having regard to the findings above, in particular that applicant is not of any ongoing concern or interest to [Rival A], anyone associated with him or his father’s former political rivals, I am not satisfied that anyone is waiting for the applicant to return to Thailand, or will threaten, search for, or harm him on return to Thailand, including by subjecting him to ‘violent retaliation’, assault, surveillance, harassment, psychological trauma, or death, upon returning to Thailand in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, I am not satisfied there is a real chance that he will suffer serious harm upon return to Thailand in the reasonably foreseeable future based on his father’s past political involvement or profile.
Does the applicant face a real chance of harm based on his actual or imputed political profile
As set out above, I am not satisfied the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm in Thailand based on his father’s past political involvement or profile. For completeness, I have considered whether the applicant would face a real chance of serious harm in Thailand due to his own actual or imputed political profile, although I note the applicant did not expressly raise any claim to fear harm on this basis. The applicant confirmed his own political involvement in Thailand consisted of assisting and supporting his father and he considered himself a Yellow Shirt supporter. I accept the applicant’s evidence that he considered himself a Yellow Shirt supported and that he assisted his father in his political endeavours during his father’s time on the provincial council. I accept there is a real chance the applicant would be perceived to be a Yellow Shirt supporter by members of the community in Thailand due to his father’s role in local politics, and the applicant’s support and close association with his father.
When asked if he had participated in any kind of political activities since arriving in Australia, the applicant confirmed he had not. I accept the applicant has not been politically active in any way since arriving in Australia in 2013.
I have had regard to relevant country information which indicates that since Thailand’s return to democracy in 2019, Thai politics has featured robust exchanges of political views, and ahead of the 2023 elections, some in country sources said that in the current environment ‘you can talk about anything except the monarchy’.[4] DFAT assesses that ordinary citizens are generally not at risk of official or societal discrimination or violence on the basis of political opinion, with the important exception of critics of the monarchy.[5] When this information was put to the applicant he responded that he had no comment.
[4] Ibid, [3.17].
[5] Ibid, [3.18].
I have considered how the applicant would conduct himself upon returning to Thailand. His evidence was that his involvement in politics arose due to his connection with his father and wanting to support and assist his father in his position and support the ideology of the Yellow Shirts. Given his father has now retired and moved to [Country 1], and the applicant has not been politically involved in any way since he arrived in Australia, I do not accept the applicant would become politically involved upon returning to Thailand. I note the applicant also did not claim that he would become politically involved upon returning to Thailand or that he would seek to criticise the monarchy in any way.
Based on the country information above, I do not accept there is a real chance the applicant would be subject to serious harm on the basis of his actual or imputed profile as a Yellow Shirts supporter. The country information indicates that since 2019, Thailand has progressed in terms of citizens ability to express opinions, Thai politics features robust exchanges of political views, and that ordinary citizens are generally not at risk of official or societal discrimination or violence on the basis of political opinion. I do not accept the applicant would be targeted or harmed in any way by members of the community, the authorities, or anyone else, due to his actual or imputed political profile as a Yellow Shirts supporter.
Employment and hardship in Thailand
The applicant expressed throughout the hearing that he fears the economic situation in Thailand, he has concerns in relation to career opportunities there, and he would be without support as his parents have left Thailand.
I raised my concern with the applicant that on the information before the Tribunal and the applicant’s own evidence, there was nothing to suggest that employment would not be available to him on return to Thailand, particularly given his extensive work history in Australia. I also put to the applicant that he had not claimed he would be denied employment or the ability to subsist in Thailand for any reason, including one of the reasons set out under s 5J(1). The applicant acknowledged this was the case and did not have any further comment.
I accept the applicant feels safe in Australia and that he has integrated into the community. I also accept that returning to Thailand in the reasonably foreseeable future after an extended absence, and after becoming accustomed to life in Australia, will cause the applicant a degree hardship, particularly given his parents no longer live there. However, I do not accept that any hardship experienced by the applicant upon returning to Thailand would be due to his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion or that it would amount to persecution for the purposes of s 5J(1) of the Act.
I have also considered whether the applicant will face hardship that amounts to serious harm, in the sense that it would threaten his capacity to subsist. Given the applicant’s experience and work profile, and in particular his ability to support himself and find employment in [Country 2], and subsequently in a number of different industries in Australia, I find he would be able to find employment either in the formal or informal sector upon returning to Thailand. I do not accept he will be denied the capacity to earn a living, or be denied basic services or healthcare, where such denial would threaten his capacity to subsist. I am not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant would face serious harm if he returned to Thailand in that he would be prevented from obtaining employment, or accessing other essential services such as housing or healthcare for any of the reasons set out under s 5J(1).
Concluding findings
Considering the totality of the information and evidence made available by the applicant, I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm for one or more of the reasons mentioned in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act, either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he returns to Thailand. Accordingly, I am not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Thailand, and he is not persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), I have considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
As outlined above, I am not satisfied on the evidence before the Tribunal that there is a real chance of serious harm for reasons of the applicant’s father’s political profile or involvement, or the applicant’s own actual or imputed political profile. I am also not satisfied that the applicant’s claims to fear harm due to the difficulty he will encounter in resettling in Thailand, or any inability to find employment will constitute serious harm. I have considered the claims individually and cumulatively. As the ‘real risk’ test for the complementary protection criterion imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test under the refugee criterion,[6] for the same reasons and findings set out above, I find that the applicant does not face a real risk of significant harm for any reason.
[6] Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505.
I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Thailand as the receiving country, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under
s 36(2)(aa).
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, the I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), I have considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…