2206305 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by a person who claimed to oppose the current government of Thailand. The applicant alleged that the Thai government was undemocratic, that the election that brought it to power was corrupt, and that he feared being targeted by the government under a law referred to as ‘section 112’. He also claimed to have been assaulted, received death threats, and feared kidnapping and killing, stating he could not seek protection from authorities due to government influence. The applicant also introduced claims related to "lenders" and their network, which appeared incongruous with his political claims.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant qualified for protection as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, on complementary protection grounds under section 36(2)(aa). This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, or if there were substantial grounds to believe he faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Thailand. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant had discharged his onus to establish all statutory elements of his claim and whether any claimed fears were well-founded and for the claimed reasons.

The Tribunal reasoned that the mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness, well-foundedness, or the reason for it. It is incumbent upon the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to establish their claim, and the Tribunal is not obliged to construct the applicant's case. The Tribunal found the applicant's claims to be generalised and confusing, particularly the introduction of "lenders" into his narrative, which lacked clarity in the context of his political claims. The Tribunal also noted the need for more current country information and an opportunity to test the applicant's claims through oral exchange.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the prescribed reasons, nor was it satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing he faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Thailand. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.