2204432 (Refugee)
[2025] ARTA 1962
•29 July 2025
2204432 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1962 (29 JULY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2204432
Tribunal:Clyde Cosentino
Date:29 July 2025
Place:Brisbane
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Statement made on 29 July 2025 at 4:12pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Thailand – political opinion – protests against the government – Thaksin supporter – employment – surveillance by local authorities – economic conditions – delay in applying for protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5AAA, 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2CASES
Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
SZSPE v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCCA 1989
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; SZTGM v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34
Subramaniam v MIMA (1998) VG310 of 1997Any 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 16 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 claims to be a national of Thailand, applied for the visa on 22 May 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant does not engage Australia’s protection obligations under the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) or the complimentary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) and does not satisfy any of the other criteria in s 36(2) of the Act.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal at a video hearing on 2 June 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Thai and English languages.
BACKGROUND
Evidence before the Department
Protection visa application
The applicant lodged an application for a protection visa on 22 May 2017. In that application, he provided the following information:
·He was born in [specified year].
·He was born in the Province of Udon Thani, Thailand.
·Before coming to Australia, he lived in [a location in] [District 1], Udon Than, Thailand.
·He acquired Thai citizenship at birth.
·His last arrival to Australia was [in] August 2011 from Bangkok.
·He overstayed his visitor visa.
·He is the sole applicant.
·He acquired his Thai passport form the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Thailand [in] 2015.
·He was assisted in completing his protection visa application. His application indicated that he wished all written communication to be sent directly to him.
·He obtained a primary and secondary school education in Thailand.
The applicant made claims for protection in his protection visa application.
When asked why he left his country, he claims:
“Has been conflicted with local authorities. Been watched/ignored/follow[ed].” Unable to seek daily employment; too difficult for family living.”
When asked what he thinks will happen to him if he returns to Thailand he claims:
“Will be watched/follow[ed] by local authorities. Unable to seek daily employment. Will be [placed] on “Blacklists”. Unable to relocate [to] other parts of the country (No financials).”
When asked whether he experienced harm he claims that he had. He claims:
“[Am] conflicted with local authorities. Been watched, follow[ed]. Difficult to seek employment. Family [hit hard] for daily living.”
When asked whether he sought help within the country after the harm, he claims he did not. He claims:
“Known no persons influences to seek help. No financials.”
When asked did he move or try to move to another part of the country, he claims he did not. He claims:
“As mentioned [in his claims], no financials”.
When asked if he thought he will be harmed or mistreated if he returned to Thailand, he claims he will. He claims:
“Will be watched/follow[ed]. Will be ignored by local authorities.”
When asked whether he thought the authorities of his country can and will protect him if he goes back he claims they will not. He claims:
“Citizen like my circumstances, will not be protected. Will be follow[ed]. And on blacklists. Ignored.
When asked whether he thought he would be able to relocate within that country, he claims that he cannot. He claims:
Anywhere will be [the] same situation in the country. No financials to cope.”
Delegate’s decision
Evidence before the Tribunal
Pre-hearing
On 26 March 2022, the applicant lodged an application for review at the Tribunal. He lodged the delegate’s decision with that review. At the time, he did not lodge any further material or written arguments with that review application in support of his claims.
On 28 March 2022, the applicant received an acknowledgment letter from the Tribunal sent to his authorised email address. That letter asked him to provide material and written arguments for the Tribunal to consider and that he should do this as soon as possible. Prior to hearing, no further information or material in support of his claims was provided.
On 22 January 2025, the Tribunal sent the applicant a pre-hearing information form (through a link) for him to complete. In that form, one of the questions was: “In your application for a protection visa you would have provided reasons or made claims as to why you need Australia to grant you protection. Do you want to give any more information about your claims for protection? Are there any other reasons why you are afraid to return to your home country? Any other evidence?” Prior to hearing, no further information or material in support of his claims was provided.
On 1 May 2025, the Tribunal emailed the applicant a Hearing invitation to attend a hearing about his review. In that email, he was asked to provide any evidence to support his case by 12 May 2025. It also referred him to the decision of the department which had set out its reasons and that he should have regard to this and any change of circumstances. Prior to hearing, no further information or material in support of his claims was provided. The applicant only provided a response to hearing asking to have a video hearing.
Tribunal hearing – 2 June 2024
At the hearing, when the applicant was asked if he remembered his original application and what was written in it, he stated that he vaguely remembered it as it was a long time ago that he lodged it. When asked who helped him put together his application, he stated friends helped him because of his lack of English language skills at the time. When asked if he remembered signing his application, he stated that he did. When asked whether everything in that application was true and correct, to the best of his knowledge, he stated that it was.
The applicant stated that, prior to coming to Australia, he last lived at [a location in] [District 1], Udon Than Province, Thailand. He lived there all his life before coming to Australia. He lived with his mother and father in [the named] Village.
He stated that he worked in “general freelancing” in Thailand. When asked what he meant by this, he stated he worked in [specified] work or seasonal work including rice farming. He agreed that his work could be described as labour intensive.
The applicant stated that he came to Australia in 2011 on a business visa (though his application states that he came on a visitor visa). He stated that he initially came to Australia on a 3-month business visa. After arriving in Australia, he did not depart again not did he go back to Thailand. When asked whether he allowed his visa to expire in Australia, he stated that he did because he could not return to Thailand. When asked whether the next visa that he applied for was a protection visa in 2017, he stated that this was the case.
When asked why he applied for a protection visa in Australia, he stated it was because in Thailand there was a problem, and he could not return. He stated that he came to Australia to seek help.
When asked what problem he was referring to here, he stated that in 2010, there were protests and a coup in Thailand against democracy and he joined the “mob” and there were some problems.
When asked again what was the problem he was referring to, he stated that “they’ did a check and found a list of names (he does not know how “they” found these names). He went to join the protest. Others joined the protest, and it included his name.
When asked again to explain in more detail the problem he was referring to, he stated that, when he applied for work, there were problems because “they” did not accept him. At the time of the coup d’etat, there were names and leaders, and his name was listed as one of the leaders. When asked how he knew that his name was listed as one of the leaders, he stated that a friend in the group had told him. When asked how this friend in the group found out about this information, the applicant stated that it was by word of mouth and his friend was included as well.
When asked whether he was arrested at any time, the applicant stated that he was not. When it was put to him that if the authorities thought that he was a leader of this protest that they would have arrested him, he stated that he avoided being arrested and had friends and groups who helped out.
When asked when his problems began, he stated in 2010. He then came to Australia in 2011. When asked to identify who “they” were which was the term used by him in evidence a number of times, he stated people of “dark influence” – people who he protested against.
When asked which people he had protested against, he stated that in 2010 there were red shirt protests, so it was a democracy protest. He stated that they burnt an area near [Location 1]. When asked where he protested at, he stated at [Location 1] or sometimes at [name], which is a sub-district of Bangkok and about 1000 kilometres from where he lived. When asked how many times he protested, he stated that he went once and stayed for about one month.
When asked who he feared will harm him if he returns, he stated that, at the time he was there, leaders surrendered to the authorities. The less known people went home. He stated that he feared the opposing party and the people that followed.
When asked why he was protesting at the time, he stated that the democracy movement belonged to Thaksin at the time. There were demands being made for democracy.
When asked whether he was protesting in support of Prime Minister Thaksin at the time, he stated “something like that”. When asked what shirt he was wearing at the protest at the time, he stated it was a red shirt.
When asked why he was protesting in support of Prime Minister Thaksin, he stated because he liked Thaksin and his policies and Thaksin had conflicts with the opposition party. The applicant did not like it when the opposition party went into government. When asked the name of the opposition party at the time he stated the Democratic Party led by Abhisit. When asked whether he came into power after Thaksin, the applicant stated that he did. He stated that Abhisit was installed after Thaksin resigned.
The Tribunal asked who the applicant feared now given that this protest occurred more than 15 years ago. The applicant stated that, right now, he did not know if things had settled down in Thailand. He stated that it was true that these events happened a long time ago. He stated that he did not know if things had settled down already.
When asked who he feared now considering that the events he referred to occurred more than 15 years ago, he stated that he was afraid of Abhisit at the time. He was protesting against Abhisit. He stated that the list of names of protesters at the time had his name.
The Tribunal indicated that it might have concerns that he was named on a list but that he only received this news by way of “word of mouth” and that he had no other information of how he was on a list. The applicant stated that he was not sure what else he could provide. The Tribunal raised again that it did not have anything before it to suggest that he had been put on a list as claimed by him. The Tribunal indicated that his only evidence is that he was told verbally that he was on a list. The applicant confirmed that this was the case.
The Tribunal indicated that it might have concerns that following the protest, he was able to live freely, did not experience any harm, that nothing happened to him from the authorities, that he applied for a visa to come to Australia and that he was able to depart at the airport in Thailand without being apprehended by authorities. The applicant stated that he had friends who were helping him through the process and making recommendations to him.
The Tribunal indicated that it might have concerns that he gave evidence that he was a protest leader. However, on his evidence, he was never harassed or arrested by Thai authorities and was able to leave the country without being apprehended. The applicant stated that he was not sure what else he needed to say or provide.
The Tribunal indicated that it might have concerns that he gave evidence at the hearing that he was a leader of a protest and on a known list. However, he made no such claims at the time of lodgement of his protection visa. It indicated that he has provided no information at all to support this claim. The applicant asked what evidence he needed to provide.
The Tribunal indicated that it might have concerns that there has been very little detail provided about his claims in his application and that he had been given ample opportunities throughout the process to provide further information and that he has not done so to this point in time. The applicant stated that at the time of lodgement of his protection visa his English language skills were not good, and he did not know who to consult.
The Tribunal then asked whether Thaksin was in power in Thailand when he last protested. The applicant stated that he was not in power because he had already left the country. When asked who the Prime Minister was at the time, he stated it was Abhisit. When asked what was the name of the party that he headed, he stated the Democratic Party. When asked who led the government after Abhisit, he stated Chan-O-Cha.
The Tribunal then indicated that the latest Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) report on Thailand stated that Thaksin’s sister was Prime Minister from 2011 to 2014, and that Chan-O-Cha was installed in 2014. The report stated that national elections took place in 2019, and that, subsequently, Prayuth became Prime Minister. [1] The Tribunal indicated that as a result of the information in the report, it might be that there is no real chance that he will suffer serious harm for a refugee reason if returned to Thailand. The applicant stated that he was not sure because Thaksin does not have the power like he did in the past.
[1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Report Thailand, 18 December 2023, Paragraph 2.3.
The Tribunal asked him why he would still be concerned about a protest that occurred more than 15 years ago in Thailand and that he had been living in Australia during all that time. The applicant stated that it was better for him to remain in Australia than to return to Thailand. He stated that Thailand is not as liveable as in the past.
The Tribunal then asked him whether his main claim then was that it was economically better to live in Australia than in Thailand. The applicant stated that it was. He stated that he now has a wife and child in Australia, and he cannot return to Thailand.
When asked whether his wife and child were Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents, he stated they were not. He stated that his wife was a [Country 1] citizen and that his child was to his [Country 1] wife. The Tribunal then explained to the applicant that his wife and child are not applicants on the review application and that the Tribunal cannot make a decision about a protection visa for his wife or child. The Tribunal indicated that it could only make a decision about whether the applicant was owed protection in Australia and could not make a decision for anyone else. The applicant stated that he understood this. When asked why his wife could not return to Thailand with the applicant, he stated because she is [Country 1].
The applicant then stated that he looks out for his child’s future and that he wants his child to be a citizen of Australia. He stated that the economy and education is better in Australia.
When asked whether his main reason for applying for protection in Australia was so he could stay in Australia and be with his family he stated that yes.
When asked again whether the main reason for his applying for a protection visa in Australia was so that he could become a lawful resident and because he wanted to stay with his family he stated yes.
When asked again whether his real reason for applying for a protection visa in Australia was so that his family could be best supported by him while he was in Australia, he stated yes.
When asked whether his concerns about being part of the red shirt protests in Thailand in 2010 were as strong as wanting to remain in Australia to be with his family, he stated that, at first, it was about the political situation in Thailand. However, now he has built his life around his family in Australia and has now settled in Australia.
When asked whether his main reason for applying for a protection visa is that he has built a life with his family in Australia and that he wants to build a life for them here he stated yes.
When asked how long he has been married in Australia, he stated for about ten years. He stated that he and his wife had lived together for about ten years. They had a child together about [number] years ago. Their child was born in Australia.
When asked what visa his wife had applied for, he stated she had applied for a protection visa as well.
The Tribunal reminded the applicant that it had not made up its mind at all about his case and that it would have to go away and consider all the evidence before it after receiving all the evidence. The Tribunal indicated that it would like to raise some matters with him and that it would like to hear his comments about those matters raised.
The Tribunal indicated that the applicant had raised general economic conditions as a claim for not returning to Thailand. The Tribunal indicated that general economic conditions in Thailand which may result in economic disadvantage as compared to Australia, might not amount to persecution. It indicated that persecution must involve serious harm against a person for reason of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group. It indicated that general economic conditions or wanting to support his family or raise his family in Australia and nowhere else because of better economic conditions in Australia, might not appear to be directed at him for reasons of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion for the purposes of the refugee assessment. The applicant asked if his application was refused what sort of status would he have in Australia. The Tribunal said it was only interested in his comments on the issue put to him about general economic conditions raised by him. The applicant stated that at the time he lodged his application it was because he had first come to Australia because of a political problem. As a result of that problem, he sought refuge in Australia. However, now he has a family in Australia, he does not want to return to Thailand because his family is here.
The Tribunal then indicated that, in relation to the complimentary protection criteria, it needed to consider whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal from Australia to Thailand, there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm. It indicated to the applicant that, at the start of the hearing, it had explained that ‘significant harm’ has a specific meaning, namely being subjected to arbitrary deprivation of life, the death penalty, torture, cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Tribunal indicated that the economic harm feared by him, namely general economic conditions or wanting to support his family or raise his family in Australia and nowhere else because of better economic conditions in Australia, might not amount to significant harm. The applicant stated that if he returns to Thailand and there is still a problem for him then who would be responsible for that.
The Tribunal indicated that he has provided very little detail and information about his claims It indicated that he provided no information and made no claims at all from the outset about him being a leader of a protest and on a list and that this was the reason for him leaving Thailand. The applicant stated that he did not know what to do at the start of the process. He came to Australia and did not know the rules here. A friend gave him advice as to what to do afterwards.
The Tribunal indicated that he was given opportunities along the way to provide further information as part of his review. He did not provide any further information to substantiate his claims when lodging his review. He did not provide further information when the Tribunal wrote to him acknowledging his application for review. He was sent a pre-hearing form to complete, and no further information was provided by the applicant in response. The applicant was sent a Hearing Invitation and asked to provide further information, but nothing was provided by the applicant. The Tribunal indicated that the new claims raised at the hearing about him being a leader of a protest and being on a list and the reason for his leaving Thailand were new claims only raised at the hearing and were not raised on lodgement of his protection visa or anytime afterwards when he was given the opportunity to do so. The Tribunal indicated that as a result of raising late claims as he had, the Tribunal might have concerns about the credibility of these new claims and any of the claims made. The applicant stated that it was his mistake and that he did not follow up on his mistake. The Tribunal reminded the applicant that it had not made up its mind at all about his case.
The Tribunal indicated that it had concerns that more than 15 years on, there has been a change of government and that things have changed dramatically in Thailand. It indicated that country information reported that Thaksin backed party was now in power.[2] It indicated that, as a result of these changes in Thailand, it might be that there is no real chance that he will suffer serious harm if he returned or that there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm if returned to Thailand in the reasonably foreseeable future. The applicant indicated that it has been unstable in Thailand. The government has had arguments and there are ongoing court cases. He has family in Australia now and he does not want to return.
[2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Report Thailand, 18 December 2023, Paragraph 2.26.
The Tribunal indicated that in his protection visa application, he arrived in Australia [in] August 2011. He did not apply for a protection visa until 27 May 2017. He stated at the hearing that he overstayed his visa. The Tribunal indicated that this significant delay in applying for a protection visa and not applying at the earliest possible opportunity might go towards the genuineness or credibility of his claims. The applicant stated that, at the time, Thailand was chaotic, so he came to Australia. He was happy that he left Thailand. He left the chaos of Thailand to live in Australia. He did not do anything in Australia until a friend recommended that he apply for a refugee visa. He was told it was the better option.
The Tribunal indicated that it had previously explained that it could only make a decision on whether the applicant, and no one else, was owed protection in Australia given that he was the only party to the review application. It indicated again that it could not make a decision for his wife or child. It indicated that he had raised his fear of going back when his family is in Australia. The Tribunal indicated that DFAT reports states that a non-Thai citizen is not prevented from marrying a Thai national. The DFAT report indicates that foreigners marrying Thai nationals must present a copy of their passport and arrival card, and affidavit from their embassy regarding their marital status, and a translation of the affidavit certified by an approved MFA translator. Both parties are issued with marriage certificates.[3] The Tribunal indicated that as a result of this country information, his wife would not be prevented in going back with the applicant to Thailand and would not be forced to stay behind in Australia if he was to return to Thailand. The applicant stated that her issue is that she does not want to live in Thailand. He stated that she wants their child to live in Australia for better welfare and better well-being.
[3] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Report Thailand, 18 December 2023, Paragraph 5.35
The Tribunal indicated that, according to the DFAT report, a person born to a Thai parent (mother or legal father) acquires Thai nationality by birth.[4] Given this information and country information raised about his wife, it might be that that there was nothing to prevent him returning to Thailand with his family intact. The applicant stated that he had nothing to say here.
[4] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Report Thailand, 18 December 2023, Paragraph 5.33
The Tribunal indicated that the DFAT report indicated that the Thaksin backed Pheu Thai candidate (Srettha Thavisin) was sworn in as Prime Minister recently.[5] It might appear as a result of this country information that there is no real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm or that there is no real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm if returned to Thailand in the reasonably foreseeable future. The applicant stated that he had nothing to add here.
[5] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Report Thailand, 18 December 2023, Paragraph 2.26
The Tribunal asked whether there was anything else he wished to add in support of his claims. The applicant stated that if he continued to stay in Australia and the protection visa did not go through, what were his options. The Tribunal indicated that it could not give immigration advice and that he could only get immigration advice from a qualified lawyer or from a registered migration agent. However, the Tribunal had not made up its mind at all about his case at that time and would go away and consider all the evidence before it before making a decision.
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
The issue in this case is whether the applicant engaged Australia’s protection obligations under the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion in
s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. It is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of the claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist in specifying, any particulars of the claim, or to establish or assist in establishing the claim.[6] For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
[6] s 5AAA of the Act; Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
The Tribunal has significant concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claims overall. There are a number of significant omissions and inconsistencies between his written claims and oral evidence at the hearing, and significant delays in providing evidence when invited to do so during the review process which the Tribunal considers significant. The applicant has provided new evidence and claims at the hearing when he has not provided previously in his protection visa application or at any stage during the review process. There has also been a significant delay in the applicant’s lodgement of his protection visa since last arriving in Australia. The Tribunal has considered all these factors individually and cumulatively and finds that they significantly undermine the credibility of his claims overall. For the reasons given below, the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s main claim of fear of harm, as made in his protection visa application, namely that he has been and will be “conflicted with local authorities”; that he has been and will be “watched/ignored/follow[ed]”; that he has been and will be unable to seek daily employment”; that it has been and will be “too difficult for family living”; that he will be on a ‘blacklist’”; and that he has “no financials” to move around the country. He claims to have come to Australia because there were problems in Thailand, and he needed to seek help in Australia.
The Tribunal finds it relevant to the assessment of credibility of the claims that the applicant has made new claims at the hearing and has provided new set of circumstances which were never provided in his original application or at any stage in the review process leading up to the hearing when given the opportunity to do so. At the hearing he made new claims that in 2010 there were protests and a coup in Thailand against democracy and he joined the protesters and there were problems that occurred as a result of these protests. He makes new claims that the authorities did a check of the names of people who attended these protests and found a list of names of people who attended these protests and that list included his name (he was unable to provide any evidence at the hearing as to how the authorities came to find out about these names which included his name). At the hearing he made new claims that he was listed as the leader of this protest and that he heard about this by “word of mouth”. He made new claims that he was vaguely supporting Prime Minister Thaksin at the time of the protest (his response to the question of whether he was supporting Prime Minister Thaksin at the time was, “something like that”). He made new claims at the hearing that he feared Abhisit who led the Democratic Party at the time of the protest.
The Tribunal finds that at no time from the lodgement of his protection visa application throughout the review process itself were any of these new claims raised (when given the opportunity to provide further information) and that all the new claims were raised at the hearing only. The Tribunal finds it significant that these new claims were omitted in his original protection visa application only to be added as new claims at the hearing and that this goes to the credibility of his claims overall, given that he had ample opportunity to raise these new claims with details in his original application or at any time throughout the review process.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s response that he was not sure what else to provide by way of evidence. It has considered his response that at the time of lodgement of his protection visa application his English language skills were not good and he did not know who to consult. Having considered these responses, and the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept them as a reason for him not including the new claims in his protection visa application or reasons for his omissions of claims in his protection visa application.
The applicant has claimed that he came to Australia because there were problems in Thailand and he needed to seek help in Australia in 2011 by coming on a visa to Australia. Yet, he has made no mention at all of any of the details of the new claims upon his arrival in Australia, in his protection visa application or at any time leading up to the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal finds it significant and going to the credibility of his claims that he did not mention the new claims when he completed his protection visa application at the very outset of his application, claims which he decided to raise only at the hearing when queried. The applicant has stated that he escaped to Australia to seek help. Yet, he provided no details of his claims at the earliest possible opportunity, neither when he completed and lodged his protection visa application or at any stage when invited to do so throughout the review process and gave new evidence and made new claims at the hearing only. The applicant has not shown at any stage from when he arrived in Australia that he had a subjective fear at all of claimed events that happened to him back in Thailand. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s actions of not providing significant detail of his claims in his protection visa application and providing new claims at the hearing when he did not provide these new claims in his protection visa application or at any time during the review process leading up to the hearing as significant and going to the credibility of his claims as a whole.
The Tribunal does not accept his response that at the time of lodgement of his protection visa application his English language skills were not good and he did not know who to consult. The applicant stated at the start of the hearing that friends helped him put the application together because he lacked the English skills to do so. He stated that he remembered signing the application and that the application was true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. The application itself also included the name and contact details of the friend who assisted him with his application. The Tribunal finds from the evidence before it, both in the application itself and on the applicant’s own evidence, that the assistance to the applicant was transparent and not opaque and that the applicant was fully aware of who was assisting him and that he consented to the assistance being provided to him. Given this evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that he failed to include new claims or failed to provide detail of his claims because his English language skills were not good, and he did not know who to consult.
The Tribunal’s credibility findings above are further enhanced by the applicant’s lack of detail and knowledge about his claims and new claims when queried by the Tribunal at the hearing. The applicant raised a new claim at the hearing that he was on a list as the leader of protests that took place in 2010. When the Tribunal asked who he was referring to when he stated that “they” had him on a list of names who attended at the protest, he was only able to state that “they” were people of “dark influence” and people who he protested against. The applicant was unable to provide detail about who he was fearing might harm him if he returned to Thailand. When asked about how he came to know how he was on this list, he stated that he was told by friends that his name was on the list as a leader of the protest. When asked how they got to know about him being on this list, he stated that it was by “word of mouth”.
The Tribunal does not accept this claim at all that he was ever on a protest list as a leader and that the authorities were searching for him, given that the applicant only made this claim at the hearing and not in his application or at any time leading up to the hearing when invited to provide further information and evidence about these claims throughout the review process. Furthermore, even when given the opportunity to provide further details about these new claims, the applicant continued to be vague and lacking in detail in his responses. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s vague oral responses which lacked detail at the hearing continued from his written claims in his protection visa application which also were vague and lacking in significant detail. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s pattern of providing lack of detail of his claims, both written and oral, to go to the credibility of his claims. The Tribunal also finds the applicant’s oral evidence that he was told by a group of friends that his name was on a list and that these group of friends found out about the list by word of mouth as not convincing at all, given that the chain of events from how they came to know about the applicant being on this list (by word of mouth) to how the applicant got to know about this list (by a group of friends who heard from word of mouth) were vague and lacking in detail. Given its credibility findings above, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s claim here that he was on a blacklist as fanciful and not credible.
The Tribunal’s credibility findings are further enhanced by the applicant’s own actions of delaying applying for protection when he arrived in Australia. The Tribunal finds it significant that the applicant came to Australia on a visa in August 2011 and did not apply for a protection visa until 22 May 2017. It finds on the applicant’s evidence before it that the lodgement of his protection visa application helped him to regularise his status in Australia and not because he feared he would be harmed if he returned to Thailand. The applicant delayed in lodging his protection visa application by waiting for his visa to expire and then applying for a protection visa. The Tribunal notes that in Subramaniam v MIMA (1998) VG310 of 1997, the Court held that even a three-month delay in the lodgement of a Protection visa application is a legitimate matter to take into account when assessing the genuineness or depth of an applicant’s fear of persecution. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s delay in applying for a protection visa is a relevant consideration in the assessment of credibility of his claims for a protection visa, strengthened by the other credibility findings the Tribunal has made relating to his claims. It finds that this delay in lodging his protection visa application and his subsequent late application to regularise his visa status to go to the genuineness of his claims overall.
Moreover, the applicant admitted at the hearing, when queried by the Tribunal, that his main claim at the hearing was that it was economically better to live in Australia and that he now had a wife and child in Australia.
Given this admission, and given the Tribunal’s findings above about the credibility of his claims, and looking at these findings individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal does not accept on the evidence before it the applicant’s claims:
·That he has been and will be “conflicted with local authorities”.
·That he has been and will be “watched/ignored/follow[ed]”.
·That he has been and will be on a ‘blacklist’ if he returns.
·That he has come to Australia because there were problems in Thailand and he needed to seek help in Australia.
For the same reasons and credibility findings above, it does not accept his new claims at the hearing:
·That he joined democracy protesters in 2010 and there were problems for him that occurred as a result of these protests.
·That the authorities did a check of the names of people who attended these protests and found a list of names of people who attended these protests, and that list included his name.
·That he was listed as the leader of this protest and that he heard about this by “word of mouth” through a group of friends.
·That he supported Prime Minister Thaksin through protests and that this made him a target of Abhisit who led the Democratic Party at the time of the protest.
·That the applicant was of interest to any politician or Thai authorities at the time he departed Thailand in 2011.
·That he has an interest in politics in Thailand and that this will put him at odds with a political party or Thai authorities if he was to return to Thailand.
Given the findings above, the Tribunal finds that there is a no real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm from the Thai government or from Thai authorities or security forces or from supporters of Thai politicians for any refugee reason if he was to return in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the applicant does not meet the criteria under s 5J(1) of the Act.
The real risk threshold for complementary protection has been held to equate to the real chance threshold under the refugee criterion.[7] Given the Tribunal’s reasonings above that it does not accept the applicant’s claims of fear of harm from the Thai government or from Thai authorities or security forces or from supporters of Thai politicians, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm from the Thai government or from Thai authorities or security forces or from supporters of Thai politicians or from any persons as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Thailand.
[7] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
Given that the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim of fear of suffering serious harm at the hands of the Thai government or from Thai authorities or security forces or from supporters of Thai politicians in Thailand, the Tribunal has turned its mind to other claims of fear made at the hearing.
The Tribunal finds it significant that the applicant was unequivocal in his response to the Tribunal at the hearing that the main reason for him applying for protection in Australia was so that he could best support his family while he remained in Australia and be with them in Australia. The Tribunal finds it significant that the applicant was unequivocal in his response to the Tribunal that he wanted to build a life for his family in Australia and that he did not think he could do so back in Thailand.
As put to the applicant, the Tribunal cannot make a decision about his child and wife (who are not Australian citizens on his evidence) and who were not part of his review application. The Tribunal can only make a finding about his fear of going back to Thailand if his family were forced to remain in Australia.
The Tribunal finds on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Report on Thailand that a non-Thai citizen is not prevented from marrying a Thai national. It finds on this DFAT report that foreigners marrying Thai nationals must present a copy of their passport and arrival card, and affidavit from their embassy regarding their marital status, and a translation of the affidavit certified by an approved MFA translator. It finds that both parties are issued with marriage certificates.[8] The Tribunal finds that, as a result of this country information, the applicant’s wife will not be prevented in going back with the applicant to Thailand and will not be forced to stay behind in Australia if he was to return to Thailand in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal’s finding here does not change even though the applicant has stated that his wife’s issue is that she does not want to live in Thailand but that she wants their child to live in Australia so that the child can have a better welfare and better well-being. The Tribunal also finds that, according to the DFAT report, a child born to a Thai parent (mother or legal father) acquires Thai nationality by birth.[9] Given this information, the Tribunal finds that his family can accompany him to Thailand as a family unit were he to return in the reasonably foreseeable future and that his fear of being forcibly separated from them is not well-founded given that the Thai government does not prevent separation of a family from a Thai citizen as found above.
[8] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Report Thailand, 18 December 2023, Paragraph 5.35
[9] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Report Thailand, 18 December 2023, Paragraph 5.33
Furthermore, in assessing this particular claim, the Tribunal finds the harm feared by the applicant, namely that he will be separated from his non-Thai family if he were to return to Thailand in the reasonably foreseeable future (which the Tribunal finds will not be forced upon him by the Thai government given its favourable laws to non-Thai citizen family members) to not be harm feared for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion as outlined in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act. It follows that the requirements in s 5J(4)(a) and s 5J(4)(c) - that a s 5J(1)(a) reason be the essential and significant reason for the persecution and that the persecution involve systematic and discriminatory conduct - are not satisfied. Therefore, looking at these claims individually and cumulatively, and having considered all the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Thailand for reason of being separated from his non-Thai family if he were to return to Thailand and is therefore not a refugee under s 5H of the Act.
As the Tribunal has found the applicant to not be a refugee here, it has also considered whether he satisfies the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa), namely whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant’s removal from Australia to Thailand, he will suffer significant harm.
The Tribunal finds that the harm feared here by the applicant, namely that he will be separated from his non-Thai family if he were to return to Thailand in the reasonably foreseeable future to not amount to any of the types of significant harm defined in s 36(2A), namely that a person will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; the death penalty will be carried out on them; or they will be subjected to torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment. In addition, the definitions of torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, and degrading treatment or punishment in s 5(1) of the Act each refer to ‘an act or omission’ and require an intention on the part of a perpetrator to inflict certain types of harm. This requires the perpetrator to have an ‘actual, subjective, state of mind’.[10] None of the claims made by the applicant satisfy those definitions as there is no perpetrator with the intention to inflict harm of the type described in those definitions. As such, the Tribunal finds that the claimed harm does not amount to significant harm for any of these claims.
[10] SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; SZTGM v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34 per Kiefel CJ, Nettle and Gordon JJ at [27]; SZSPE v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCCA 1989 at [62] and [72] (upheld on appeal: SZSPE v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 267 at [40]).
The applicant has also made claims about economic disadvantage in Thailand and wanting to build a life for his family in Australia.
Again, in assessing this particular claim, the Tribunal finds the harm feared by the applicant, namely economic disadvantage in Thailand and wanting to build a life for his family in Australia to not be harm feared for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion as outlined in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act. It follows that the requirements in s 5J(4)(a) and s 5J(4)(c) - that a s 5J(1)(a) reason be the essential and significant reason for the persecution and that the persecution involve systematic and discriminatory conduct - are not satisfied. Therefore, looking at these claims individually and cumulatively, and having considered all the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Thailand for reason of economic disadvantage in Thailand and wanting to build a life for his family in Australia and is therefore not a refugee under s 5H of the Act.
As the Tribunal has found the applicant to not be a refugee here, it has also considered whether he satisfies the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa), namely whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant’s removal from Australia to Thailand, he will suffer significant harm.
The Tribunal finds that the harm feared here by the applicant, namely economic disadvantage in Thailand and wanting to build a life for his family in Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future to not amount to any of the types of significant harm defined in s 36(2A), namely that a person will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; the death penalty will be carried out on them; or they will be subjected to torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment. In addition, the definitions of torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, and degrading treatment or punishment in s 5(1) of the Act each refer to ‘an act or omission’ and require an intention on the part of a perpetrator to inflict certain types of harm. This requires the perpetrator to have an ‘actual, subjective, state of mind’.[11] None of the claims made by the applicant satisfy those definitions as there is no perpetrator with the intention to inflict harm of the type described in those definitions. As such, the Tribunal finds that the claimed harm does not amount to significant harm for any of these claims.
[11] SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; SZTGM v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34 per Kiefel CJ, Nettle and Gordon JJ at [27]; SZSPE v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCCA 1989 at [62] and [72] (upheld on appeal: SZSPE v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 267 at [40]).
The applicant has not claimed to fear harm for any other reason if he returns to Thailand and the Tribunal finds no other protection claims arising on the facts.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is 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), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is 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
102. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Date of hearing: 2 June 2025
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.
…
0
4
0