2205292 (Refugee)
[2025] ARTA 2167
•26 September 2025
2205292 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 2167 (26 September 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2205292
Tribunal:General Member F Russo
Date:26 September 2025
Place:Sydney
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Statement made on 26 September 2025 at 3:06pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Thailand – political opinion – opposition to corruption – witnessed and reported corruption – threatened and physically assaulted – fears being abducted, beaten or killed, and false criminal charges – non-compliance with visa conditions – inconsistent claims – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J–5LA, 36, 65, 369, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2CASES
Anandaraj Subramaniam v MIMA [1998] FCA 305
Kavun v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 370
MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
Ngalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 346
SZJYM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FMCA 652
Zhang v Refugee Review Tribunal & Anor [1997] FCA 423Any 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 4 April 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 19 September 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The applicant lodged the application for review of the delegate’s decision with the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 9 April 2022.
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 (Cth) (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. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 25 September 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
The applicant is [an age]-year-old Thai national who first arrived in Australia [in] August 2010, holding a Student visa. The applicant claims that while he was a student in Thailand, he witnessed corruption involving a politician, which he reported, following which he received threats and was physically assaulted. He claims that he will experience harm on return to Thailand on the basis of his political opinion and opposition to corruption.
Evidence before the Department
Documents provided to the Department
In addition to his Protection visa application, the applicant provided the Department with copies of his Thai national ID card, evidence of [Master’s degree 1] from [University 1] in March 2010, student transcript for [Master’s degree 1] and student transcripts for [Diplomas 1 and 2] issued by [College 1] in May 2013 and May 2016, respectively. The applicant also provided the Department with copies of pages from his Thai passport.
Claims made with Protection visa application
In his Protection visa application, the applicant claims that the reason why he left Thailand was to come to Australia to study and increase his knowledge to become [an Occupation 1], having graduated in [Master’s degree 1] in Thailand.
The applicant claims that he experienced harm in Thailand. He claims that he is a radical student and often finds himself against the political system. He claims that while he was a student he took an internship with an ‘election commissioning center’. He claims that he reported corruption to the election commission, and that as a result, an investigation was conducted into a candidate. The candidate subsequently ‘lost their competition’ as a result of the report he made. He claims that the candidate spent a lot of money to persuade people to vote for ‘their group’. He claims that he often saw the candidate face-to-face and was often physically abused by them. He states that he did not seek any help from authorities because the candidate has a background as an ‘influencer’. He also states that he did not try to move to another part of Thailand as he believes he can be easily found. He claims that if he returns to Thailand, he will be harmed or mistreated because he was known as a ‘political enemy’.
Delegate’s reasons for decision
There is nothing in the delegate’s reasons for decision to indicate that the applicant was invited to attend an interview with the Department. The delegate’s reasons for decision indicate that on 23 September 2021, the Department sent the applicant a letter acknowledging that the applicant had lodged a valid visa application and advised the applicant that he could provide additional information relating to his claims and instructed him as to how he could do this. The letter advised the applicant that the Department could make a decision on the visa application without providing an opportunity to present further information at an interview.
After setting out country information regarding the political situation in Thailand, opposition groups/supporters and government critics, the delegate noted that the applicant had not provided evidence in support of his claim that he participated in an internship at an election commissioning centre, nor any evidence that he had reported corruption to the electoral commission or been physically assaulted. The delegate also considered that there was no evidence before the Department to suggest that the applicant was of adverse interest to authorities when he last departed Thailand. The delegate noted in this regard that the applicant had provided his Thai passport and national ID card, both of which were issued in [2020], which indicates that he had interacted with Thai authorities since arriving in Australia and was of no adverse interest to them when these documents were issued. The delegate also noted that the applicant had arrived in Australia approximately 11 years prior to the refusal decision, and there was no evidence before the Department to indicate that he had been pursued, threatened or harassed during that time, nor any evidence that he had been involved in any political activities since arriving in Australia that would have raised his profile or caused him to come to the attention of Thai authorities.
The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant is considered by Thai authorities to be a high-level political opponent, political activist, human rights defender or that he had been involved in political activities against the Thai government. The delegate was not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted in the reasonably foreseeable future on return to Thailand on the basis of his political opinion and was not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution. The delegate was therefore not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act. The delegate was also not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Thailand, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm, and was therefore not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Evidence before the Tribunal
Documents and written claims provided to the Tribunal
The applicant provided the Tribunal, together with his application for review, copies of the delegate’s decision, notice of the decision from the Department, a copy of the biodata pages from his Thai passport and a covering letter, dated 9 April 2022. In his covering letter, the applicant included the following claims (the details of which have been transcribed with the typographic and errors of expression):
I was opposed to the electoral system due to blatant corruption they witnessed.I reported corruption to the electoral commission which resulted in a candidate being investigated and losing. The candidate invested a significant amount of money in their campaign and physically abused the me when they came face to face. I still fears they will be harmed by Thai authorities or influential political candidates on the basis of their political opinion and opposition to corruption
within the electoral process my name on still on
On 22 September 2025, the applicant provided a response to the hearing invitation from the Tribunal, as well as a three-page statement (dated 20 September 2025) containing additional information about his claims for protection. In this statement, the applicant makes the following claims:
a.While studying [Master’s degree 1] at [University 1], he became an active and outspoken critic of the Thai political system and the widespread corruption that he regularly witnessed;
b.He had an internship at the Provincial Election Commission Office in 2009, during which he observed candidates using large sums of money and gifts to influence voters and local officials;
c.He documented the corruption that he saw and formally reported his observations to the Election Commission;
d.His evidence triggered an official investigation that resulted in the disqualification of a prominent candidate who was backed by powerful businessmen and influential politicians in the province;
e.After the candidate was disqualified, the candidate and his associates directly blamed the applicant, claiming that he destroyed the candidate’s political career. From that point onwards, the applicant became a target for retaliation;
f.Immediately after his report became public, the applicant started receiving anonymous phone calls which threatened that he would ‘pay for interfering in politics’. Strangers followed him near his university dormitory and outside lecture halls. He found men waiting along his usual route home and twice he was confronted late at night by unknown men who shoved him and warned that ‘those who expose elections disappear’. He lived in constant fear, not knowing when an attack might occur;
g.Friends warned him that the candidate’s family was extremely powerful and had close ties to the police and local officials;
h.The harm he suffered included repeated death threats, stalking and physical assault. In early 2010, two men grabbed him by the collar and punched his face near the back entrance to the university library. They warned him to ‘keep quiet about their boss’ and threatened that he would not ‘see the next election’ if he continued to speak out;
i.He received several late-night phone calls in which the caller said that they knew where he lived and would ‘make an example’ of him;
j.His room door in his dormitory was vandalised with spray paint which called him a traitor and warned him to ‘watch your back’;
k.The men who undertook these actions were known supporters of the political candidate and were connected to influential local families and provincial politicians;
l.He did not seek help from the police or government agencies because the perpetrators were closely tied to local authorities and law enforcement. Friends and colleagues warned him that the authorities would either ignore his plea or secretly inform the perpetrators;
m.He did not relocate elsewhere within Thailand as this would not have kept him safe. The candidate and his political allies have networks and supporters across the country, particularly in the north and northeast where the applicant’s professional and family connections are well known. The applicant was publicly identified as the student who identified electoral corruption, so it would be easy to trace him through university contacts, family members and social networks;
n.If he returns to Thailand, he fears the disqualified candidate and their political networks will retaliate violently. He fears being abducted, beaten or killed. He also fears false criminal charges, which are commonly fabricated to intimidate whistleblowers, and ongoing harassment of his family in order to silence him; and
o.
Evidence regarding the preparation and contents of the visa application
The applicant told the Tribunal that he made the visa application with the help of the [sibling] of a friend of his. He stated that he does not know this person’s profession or know whether they are a lawyer or migration agent. He stated that this person first prepared a Protection visa application for another friend of his, and that friend then suggested to the applicant that he also make such an application.
The applicant stated that the contents of the application form were not read back to him and that he does not know the contents of the application form.
The Tribunal noted that five days before the hearing, the applicant had provided a written statement containing further information about his claims. The applicant told the Tribunal that this written statement was prepared by the same person who prepared his visa application, and that the contents of this written statement were also not read back to him.
Evidence of the applicant’s background and visa and immigration history
The applicant confirmed that he is a Thai national, of Thai ethnicity and is a Buddhist.
The applicant initially told the Tribunal that he was born in Nong Bua Lam Phu. The Tribunal noted that this is the name of both a city and a province in Thailand and questioned whether he was born in the city. The applicant responded that he was born in the district of[1][District 1], outside the city of Nong Bua Lam Phu. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s Thai passport indicates that he was born in Khon Kaen. The applicant stated that he lived in [District 1] until his fifth or sixth year of primary school, after which he moved to Udon Thani, where he lived in a dormitory while completing his high school education. He then moved to [City 1], where he completed his undergraduate university studies and lived in a university dormitory. Following this, he lived and worked on two different farms, one in Sing Buri province, the other in Nong Bua Lam Phu province. Following this, he undertook his Masters degree at [University 1], living in a university dormitory in the city of Khon Kaen. After completing his Masters degree, the applicant spent about one month in Nong Bua Lam Phu, about three months in Udon Thani and about four months in [City 1], though he stated that he didn’t live in these three locations consecutively and transferred ‘here and there’. When asked about his employment in Thailand, the applicant stated that he worked [in workplaces as an Occupation 2].
[1] This spelling of [District 1] was provided by the applicant at page 4 of his visa application form.
No details of the applicant’s family are included in the Protection visa application. At the hearing he stated that both his parents are alive and live in Nong Bua Lam Phu. He has [siblings], one of whom lives with his parents, the other who lives in Rayong province. He stated that he is not married and has never been married or in a de facto relationship and he has no children.
The applicant confirmed that he arrived in Australia [in] August 2010, holding a Student visa. He confirmed that he arrived by plane and travelled using his Thai passport. He stated that he completed [Diploma 1] while holding his first Student visa. When asked his reasons for travelling to Australia, the applicant stated that he wanted to further his education, and that he didn’t want to remain in Thailand as he had fears. He then applied for another Student visa in 2013, which was for the purpose of completing [Diploma 2]. He gave evidence that he did not complete [Diploma 2], though he completed a Certificate III course leading to this qualification. He gave evidence that after his second Student visa ceased, he remained in Australia without a valid visa for about five years, though he could not remember the exact dates, following which he applied for the Protection visa under review.
Evidence of claims for protection
The applicant gave evidence that while studying [Master’s degree 1] at [University 1], he had the opportunity to visit different communities throughout Thailand, which included meeting [prominent leaders]. He stated that through this work he got to see money being distributed at election times for corrupt purposes.
When questioned about his political beliefs and whether he was a member of any political parties or groups while at university, the applicant responded that he was a member of [Club 1]. He stated that the group was formed by senior students and that he was an ordinary member. He stated that at one point he was a committee member, with the committee consisting of about 15 to 20 students per year on a rotating basis, with total membership of the club being about 200 or 300. He stated that his role involved undertaking [research], and that topics and questions were given to him by leaders of the club. The applicant gave evidence that he has never been a member of a political party and has never participated in a protest.
When asked whether he ever held an internship in Thailand, the applicant made no mention of an internship with the Electoral Commission, but instead stated that he did an internship at various [workplaces] in his capacity as a university student. The university provided him with a form which he presented to [workplaces], which provided him with the opportunity to intern at the [workplaces]. He was provided with free accommodation and meals by the [workplaces], but he was not paid for this work.
The applicant told the Tribunal that during one of his internship opportunities he was at the house of a [prominent leader, Mr A] who lived near his parents. He stated that in approximately early November 2009, he was visiting [Mr A] for the purpose of conducting a survey about the formation of a group for [Project 1]. While he was visiting [Mr A], he happened to see a politician visit with a number of ‘brown backs’. The politician handed [Mr A] a bag of money and said words to the effect of, ‘This is for your village.’ The applicant claimed that he did not see or hear anything else and did not take any photographs of what he saw.
When asked who the politician was, the applicant responded that it was [Politician A], whom he said is a local politician in [Branches 1 and 2]. When asked whether this politician is affiliated with any political parties, he stated that he has belonged to three different parties over the years, including [Parties 1, 2 and 3].
The applicant gave evidence that after he witnessed this incident, around the end of December 2009 he wrote a sealed letter to the assistant of the governor of [Branch 1]. He confirmed that he wrote only the one letter. The applicant stated that no action or investigations were undertaken by the authorities in response to this letter and there were no consequences for the politician involved, who still holds a position in Parliament.
The applicant claimed that following his letter, in February or March 2010 he noticed people following him and he received threatening phone calls. He stated that he was followed by two middle-aged men either near the university cafeteria or library, and that they said words to the effect of ‘What have you done?’ and ‘You are fully aware. You don’t need to speak too much.’ He gave evidence that the men did not make any other threats, though he claimed that they grabbed him by the front of his shirt. He stated that this was the only time he was physically approached by anyone.
The applicant gave evidence that four or five days prior to this incident he received a phone call where he was told to stop what he was doing, otherwise he would be in trouble. He stated that after this he received a few calls from unknown numbers, but he did not answer them.
The applicant confirmed that no other incidents occurred while he was in Thailand. He told the Tribunal that he does not have a copy of the letter that he sent to the governor’s assistant, nor any other evidence to support his claims.
The applicant claimed that he did not seek assistance from the police or authorities, other than sending the sealed letter, as the politician seemed to have broad connections, including to the police and the village head.
When asked what he believes would happen if he were to now return to Thailand, the applicant stated that he is not sure. He stated that the politician is still in power and may be concerned that the applicant has a photograph of what happened that day at [Mr A’s] house, which could result the politician being removed from his position because of corruption. The applicant again confirmed that he does not possess such a photograph.
The applicant confirmed that no members of his family have been harmed or received any contact from the politician or his associates. He also confirmed that he has not taken any action in relation to this matter since arriving in Australia. When asked whether there is any evidence to indicate the politician or his associates continue to have any interest in him since his departure for Australia, the applicant responded in the negative.
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.
Country information
The most recent DFAT Country Information Report for Thailand was published on 18 December 2023. The report contains the following information regarding corruption in Thailand:
Corruption
2.27 Thailand is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against corruption (CAC) (see Human Rights Framework) and has an outwardly strong legal framework to prevent and eliminate corruption. Nevertheless, corruption thrives in Thailand, ranked 101 out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index. In 2020 (the most recent available figures), Transparency International found that a quarter of Thais had paid a bribe to access public services in the previous year, and 40 per cent of Thais thought the police were mostly, or all, corrupt.
2.28 It is common to pay bribes or use personal connections to obtain identity documents (see Documentation), enrol children in school and escape traffic fines. Contributing factors include low public sector wages, a culture of gift exchange when doing business, and a tendency to view corruption as the actions of ‘bad individuals’ rather than as a systemic social or political issue.
2.29 Local and foreign observers report that high-level corruption is common among senior officials, politicians, and the military. Despite justifying its overthrow of the Yingluck government with a promise to end corruption, the military-backed Prayuth government was involved in numerous scandals, including revelations the Deputy Prime Minister had accumulated an undeclared USD 685,000 (AUD 1 million) luxury watch collection, a lottery scam implicating a senior aide to the Prime Minister, and irregularities in the procurement of Chinese submarines by the Thai navy.
2.30 The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is empowered to investigate allegations of corruption against politicians, judges, and government officials. Critics allege the NACC is highly politicised, and that it has ignored or dismissed alleged malfeasance by military-backed governments while aggressively pursuing complaints against their political opponents.
In response to this information, the applicant stated that from what he sees on the news, there is still corruption in many things in Thailand, no matter which government is in power, including with the Yingluck government, the Prayuth government and the current government. He referred to recent news about the collapse of a road in Bangkok and stated that this may have occurred as a result of corruption by authorities. He stated that corruption will be a difficult issue for Thailand to solve as the police and government agencies all have personal ties.
The Tribunal noted the following information in the DFAT report regarding whistleblowers and activists, to which the applicant indicated he had no comments:
3.51 Thailand has no dedicated legal protections for whistleblowers. People who draw attention to corruption or criminal activity, including civil servants, experience threats, discrimination, and violence from the people they expose and their networks. In 2017, Police Major-General Paween Pongsirin fled Thailand after receiving threats in relation to his investigation of high-ranking military involvement in human trafficking. In 2020, Army Sergeant Narongchai Intharakawi received death threats and faced a disciplinary hearing after he filed complaints about corruption in the Army Ordnance Materiel Rebuild Center where he worked. After Narongchai fled his barracks and went public with his claims, the Army sought to court martial him for going AWOL (absent without leave).
3.52 DFAT assesses that civil society activists and human rights defenders who work on sensitive issues such as civil and political rights, the conflict in the SBPs, or labour, environment and land issues face a moderate risk of discrimination and violence at the hands of state and private actors (especially where their activities challenge powerful business, political or criminal interests) in the form of judicial harassment, threats, assault, enforced disappearance and/or extrajudicial killing. DFAT assesses that whistleblowers who challenge these interests face a high risk of harassment and violence at the hands of these same interests. DFAT assesses that state protection for civil society activists, human rights defenders and whistleblowers is generally inadequate.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a refugee, in particular, whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in Thailand for one or more of the five reasons sets out in s 5J(1) of the Act. If he does not meet the refugee criterion, the Tribunal must consider whether the applicant meets the criteria for complementary protection, in particular, whether as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Thailand, there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Identity findings
On the basis of the copy of the applicant’s Thai passport which he provided to the Department and Tribunal, I accept that the applicant is a citizen of Thailand and that he is who he claims to be. The Tribunal accepts that Thailand is the applicant’s ‘receiving country’ for the purposes of the refugee criterion and for complementary protection purposes.
The applicant claimed at the hearing that he does not have a right to enter and reside in any other third country. On the basis of the information before the Tribunal, I accept this claim and find that the applicant does not have a right to enter and reside in any third country.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
In determining whether an applicant is entitled to protection in Australia the Tribunal must first make findings on the claims the applicant has made. This may involve an assessment of the applicant’s credibility and, in doing so, the Tribunal is aware of the need, and the importance, of being sensitive to the difficulties asylum seekers often face. Accordingly, the Tribunal notes that the benefit of doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible, but unable to substantiate all of their claims.
The Tribunal notes that the mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the asserted fear, that the fear is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. A fear of persecution is not ‘well-founded’ if it is merely assumed or if it is mere speculation. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant themselves, in as much detail as is necessary to enable an examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for them. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any or all the allegations made by an applicant (MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596; Ngalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191; Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169).
The applicant claims in his visa application that he was a radical student in Thailand and that he held an internship with a provincial electoral commission, during which he witnessed blatant corruption. He claims that he reported this corruption to the electoral commission, which resulted in an investigation and a political candidate losing their candidacy. He claims that after this he saw the political candidate face-to-face very often and was often physically abused by them. The applicant makes similar claims, though in greater detail, in the written statement which he provided to the Tribunal on 20 September 2025, five days before the hearing. In this statement, he claims that while studying [Master’s degree 1] at university, he became and active and outspoken critic of the Thai political system and of the widespread corruption that he regularly witnessed. He claims that in 2009 he had an internship with a provincial electoral commission office, during which he personally observed large sums of money and gifts being used by candidates to influence voters and local officials. He claims that he documented what he saw and formally reported his observations to the electoral commission, which triggered an official discrimination that resulted in the disqualification of a prominent political candidate. He claims that he was blamed by the politician and his associates for ruining his political career. He claims that after his report became public, he received threats through anonymous phone calls, and that in early 2010 he was grabbed by the collar and punched in the face by two men who also threatened him. He claims that the door of his dormitory room was vandalised with spray-painted messages and that he was stalked, physically assaulted and received repeated death threats.
The Tribunal notes the discrepancy in the applicant’s evidence as to his place of birth with the place recorded in his passport. The applicant claimed that he was born and raised in [District 1] in Nong Bua Lam Phu province, until his fifth or sixth year of primary school, even though his passport indicates that he was born in the neighbouring province of Khon Kaen. The Tribunal makes no adverse findings regarding this inconsistency given the district the applicant claims he is adjacent to the province of Khon Kaen, and accepts that the applicant was raised in [District 1], and that his parents and one of his [siblings] continue to live there.
The Tribunal notes the academic transcript and award of [Masters degree 1] conferred on the applicant in February 2010 by [University 1]. On the basis of this dpcument, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence of his educational background in Thailand. The Tribunal also accepts the account the applicant gave at the hearing of his employment in Thailand and of the various locations where he lived while undertaking [Occupation 2], which was delivered in a matter-of-fact manner and is consistent with his background [education].
The Tribunal also accepts the applicant’s account of his travel to Australia, which is supported by the transcripts he provided from [College 1] and is consistent with the information contained in his Departmental Movement Details. On his own account, the applicant arrived in Australia [in] August 2010, holding a Student visa, during which time he completed [Diploma 1]. He was granted a second Student visa in 2013, which was for the purpose of completing [Diploma 2]. The applicant gave evidence that while holding this visa he completed the requirements for a [Certificate III], which is consistent with the student transcript issued by [College 1 in] May 2016, which indicates that he had achieved the award of the [Certificate III]. The applicant told the Tribunal that after this he felt like he could no longer cope with his studies, so he left them and did not apply for a further visa for a period of time after his second Student visa ceased. The applicant gave evidence that he did not hold a valid visa to Australia for about five years, until he applied for the Protection visa under review. This is consistent with the information in the applicant’s Movement Details, which indicates that his second Student visa ceased on 1 June 2017, and he was granted a Bridging C visa on 23 September 2021, four days after he applied for the Protection visa. The applicant therefore remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen for a period of over four years.
While I accept on the basis of the country information set out above that corruption remains a widespread and significant issue in Thailand, I do not accept the applicant’s claim that he personally witnessed the claimed incident of corruption, nor that he reported it or acted as a whistleblower, nor that this resulted in investigations or the disqualification of a political candidate. The applicant’s account at the hearing of how he came to witness the exchange of money by a politician to [Mr A] lacked credibility. The applicant claimed that he just happened to be present at the home of [Mr A] when a prominent politician arrived with a team of ‘brown backs’ and handed over a bag of money. The applicant’s oral account of what happened is also markedly different from the written accounts provided in his visa application and the written statement provided to the Tribunal only five days prior to the hearing. While this is not an exhaustive list of the inconsistencies between the applicant’s oral and written accounts, some of the key differences include:
a.Inconsistency regarding whether the applicant held an internship with the electoral commission and the circumstances as to how the applicant came to witness corruption. In his written claims, the applicant claimed that he had an internship with a provincial electoral commission office, during which he came to observe political candidates giving large sums of money and gifts to influence voters and local officials. In contrast, at the hearing the applicant gave no evidence of an internship with the electoral commission. When asked whether he held an internship, he instead described internships with various [workplaces]. The applicant also claimed that he witnessed only one episode of corruption, and that this was witnessed while he was conducting a survey about [Project 1], and that he just happened to be present at [Mr A’s] home when he witnessed a politician handing over a bag of money;
b.Inconsistency regarding where he lodged a report about the corruption. In his visa application, the applicant claims that he ‘reported that corruption to the election commission’. In his written statement to the Tribunal, he claims that he documented the corruption that he saw and ‘formally reported my observations to the Election Commission’. In contrast, in his oral evidence he claimed that he provided a sealed letter addressed to the assistant of the governor of [Branch 1] and stated that he took no other action;
c.Inconsistency as to whether any investigations occurred as a result of his report and whether the matter became public. In both his visa application and written statement, the applicant claims that investigations resulted from his report. In his written statement he also claims that his report triggered an ‘official investigation’ and that his report became public. In his oral evidence he denied that his sealed letter resulted in any investigations or became public;
d.Inconsistency regarding the impact of his report on the politician allegedly involved in corruption. In his visa application the applicant claims that his report and the subsequent investigations resulted in the political candidate losing their ‘competition’, and in his written statement to the Tribunal he claims that the political candidate was disqualified. In contrast, at the hearing, when asked for details of the politician, the applicant gave the name of a prominent Thai politician and said that this person is still involved in politics today and the report he made had no effect;
e.Inconsistency in the descriptions of the physical harm he experienced. In his evidence at the hearing, the applicant claimed that he was approached by two middle-aged men either outside the university library or cafeteria, and that they grabbed him by the shirt and threatened him. He denied that he experienced any other physical harm. In contrast, in his written statement to the Tribunal, the applicant claimed that the two men grabbed him by the collar and punched him in the face near the back entrance to the university library. Further, in his visa application he claims that he often saw the political candidate accused of corruption face-to-face and was often assaulted directly by him.
The Tribunal finds that these inconsistencies, particularly when looked at as a whole, to be significant. They go to the heart of the applicant’s claims regarding how he was in a position to observe corruption, what corruption and how many instances of it he observed, how and to whom he made a report about the corruption, the impact of his report, including whether any investigations were conducted and the consequences for those accused of corruption, as well as the nature of the harm which he claims he experienced as a result of his actions. The Tribunal also notes again that the written statement the applicant provided to the Tribunal was submitted only five days prior to the hearing, which raises concern about the significant discrepancies between this statement and his oral claims. When these inconsistencies and concerns were put to the applicant at the hearing as a matter of procedural fairness, he indicated that he had no comment.
The inconsistencies noted above raise significant concern about the applicant’s credibility and the truthfulness of his claims. While I accept that the applicant graduated with [Master’s degree 1] in February 2010 and that he undertook work [at workplaces] in various location in Thailand, I do not accept that he witnessed a bag of money being handed over by a politician to [Mr A], nor that he directly observed any other instances of corruption involving politicians [and other prominent leaders]. I do not accept that the applicant held an internship at an electoral commission office. I also do not accept that the applicant documented or made a report about witnessing corruption, whether to the electoral commission, the provincial governor or to anyone else, nor that the applicant was publicly identified as a student who made such a report. It follows that I do not accept that such a report resulted in the disqualification of a political candidate, nor that it had any effect on the political career of a political candidate. I also do not accept that the applicant received any threats by telephone, in person or by any other means as a result of reporting corruption, nor that he received repeated death threats. I do not accept that he was physically assaulted or harmed in any way as a result of reporting corruption, whether directly by a politician, anyone acting on behalf of a politician or by anyone else. I also do not accept that the applicant was an active or outspoken critic of the Thai political system or of corruption.
Even if the Tribunal were to accept the applicant’s oral evidence that he sent a sealed letter to the assistant to the governor of the province in December 2009 (which it does not accept), the Tribunal has difficulty accepting that this would be a reason why the applicant would experience any harm on return to Thailand. The Tribunal put to the applicant that according to his oral evidence, all that he did was send a letter to the assistant of the provincial governor. On his own evidence, this did not result in any investigations, nor did it have any impact on the career of the politician, whom the applicant conceded remains in Parliament today. A basic search of information regarding the politician named by the applicant during the hearing indicates that [Politician A details].[2]
[2] Ibid.
The applicant also confirmed that he has no evidence in support of his claim that he saw a politician give a bag of money to [Mr A]. He gave evidence that he has not taken any action in relation to the claimed corruption since arriving in Australia, nor is there any evidence of any actions the applicant has conducted in Australia which would make him of interest to anyone in Thailand. The applicant claimed that the politician in question may fear that he has a photograph of the incident involving the hand-over of money, and therefore may fear the applicant’s return to Thailand. I give little weight to such a claim given the applicant gave evidence that he did not take a photograph of the incident, nor is there any convincing evidence to suggest that the politician fears or suspects that the applicant has a photograph of the incident. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the claimed incident occurred over 15 years ago, and there is no convincing evidence that he or any members of his family have been contacted by the politician or his associates since then, nor that he would be of interest to anyone in Thailand on this basis. The applicant indicated that he had no comment in response to this concern.
My concerns with the applicant’s claims to protection are further supported by the applicant’s visa and immigration history. The applicant claims that he received threats and was confronted by two men in early 2010 (in his written statement to the Tribunal) or in February 2010 (in his oral evidence). The applicant did not arrive in Australia until [August] 2010, approximately six months after he claims he experienced these events. At the hearing, the Tribunal put to the applicant that his delay in leaving Thailand may indicate that he did not fear persecution or harm in Thailand for the reasons claimed, and that he travelled to Australia for other reasons. The applicant indicated that he had no comment in response to this concern.
Further concern about the applicant’s claims is raised by the applicant’s delay in applying for the Protection visa. The Tribunal put to the applicant that he arrived in Australia in August 2010, but did not apply for the Protection visa until 19 September 2021, over 11 years after he arrived. Rather than applying for a Protection visa after his first Student visa expired, he applied for a second Student visa. The applicant also, of his own admission, spent more than four years in Australia without a visa and as an unlawful non-citizen. The Tribunal put to the applicant that this delay, and his visa history as whole, may indicate that he did not fear returning to Thailand and may have applied for the Protection visa for other reasons, including that he had limited visa options after being in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen for over four years. The applicant indicated that he had no comments in response to these concerns.
An applicant's delay in applying for a protection visa can support adverse credibility finding as well as a finding that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of harm.[3] In Anandaraj Subramaniam v MIMA (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Carr J, 10 March 1998) Justice Carr agreed with Heerey J in Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 346 that, as a matter of principle, that the period of time which elapses between an applicant's arrival in Australia and the time when they claim refugee status is a legitimate matter to take into account when assessing the genuineness or at least the depth of an applicant's fear of persecution. His Honour found that even a delay of three months is a legitimate matter for the Tribunal to take into account when deciding whether to believe an applicant. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has credibly explained why there was a delay of over 11 years in applying for the Protection visa after he arrived in Australia. The applicant told the Tribunal that a friend of his had applied for a Protection visa and suggested that he do the same, and that they both obtained assistance in lodging the visa application from the same person. Accordingly, while the applicant's delay in seeking protection is not determinative, I consider the lengthy delay in seeking protection casts further doubts on the genuineness of the applicant’s claimed fear of persecution.
[3] Kavun v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 370 at [22] (Emmett J); Zhang v Refugee Review Tribunal & Anor [1997] FCA 423 (Goldberg J); SZJYM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FMCA 652 at [82] (Barnes J).
On the basis of the above, I do not accept that the applicant would experience any harm or be of interest to anyone on return to Thailand, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, as a result of his claims relating to witnessing or reporting corruption.
At the hearing, the applicant did not claim that he would experience any harm on the basis of his beliefs as a ‘radical student’ or because of membership of any political groups or parties. He gave evidence that he does not fear returning to Thailand on any basis other than his claimed fears relating to the incident of corruption. At the hearing he gave evidence that he was a member of a club organised by senior students, and that at one stage he was a committee member of the club. He stated that he did not have a leadership role and stated that tasks were given to him by club leaders. He gave evidence that he has never been a member of a political party, nor has he attended a protest. There is no evidence to indicate, and the applicant has not suggested, that he would experience any harm on return to Thailand on the basis of his membership of a student club over 15 years ago. While I am prepared to accept that the applicant may have been the member of a club at university, and that he may have been a committee member at one point, I do not accept that the applicant was a student radical, nor that he was of any interest to Thai authorities, politicians or anyone else when he departed Thailand, nor that he would experience any harm on return to Thailand on the basis of such membership over 15 years ago.
Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, both individually and cumulatively, and all of the evidence and findings above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of harm on return to Thailand in the reasonably foreseeable future for the reasons claimed or on any other basis. I am not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion or because of his membership of a particular social group in the foreseeable future on return to Thailand. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
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), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
As noted above, I have not accepted that there is a real chance that the applicant will experience any harm from anyone due to his political opinion, because of any corruption that he personally witnessed or reported or for any other reason if he returns to Thailand, now of in the reasonably foreseeable future. I do not accept that the applicant would be of any adverse interest to any politicians, political candidates, their associates, Thai authorities or anyone else. I have also not accepted that the applicant was a student radical or an outspoken critic of the Thai political system or of corruption. I do not consider the applicant will be of any interest to anyone in Thailand as a result of his political opinion or his membership of a student club over 15 years ago.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will be arbitrarily deprived of life, or that the death penalty will be carried out on him, or that he will be subjected to torture, or that he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or that he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if he returns to Thailand now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Thailand, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) and s 5(1) of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS
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
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Date of hearing: 25 September 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
6
0