2518125 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1936

2518125 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1936 (2 September 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2518125
Tribunal:General Member T Barty
Date:2 September 2025

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

Statement made on 02 September 2025 at 2:45pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Thailand – economic conditions – borrowed from loan shark for business and later for travel – harassed and threatened and ongoing approaches to family – mental distress – partner with children in Australia – previous visa cancelled and applicant in immigration detention – agent’s advice to apply for protection visa rather than partner visa – inconsistent claims and evidence – no documentation about business loan – no claim of physical harm – able to gain second loan – country information – loan sharking a criminal offence – interest limited by law, police investigations and support for victims – accessing state protection sometimes difficult, and victims at high risk of harassment and moderate risk of violence – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
MIMA v VBAO of 2002 [2004] FCA 1495
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 7 April 2025 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 22 March 2025. In her application she said she was a national of Thailand. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a refugee and was not entitled to complementary protection.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 June and 6 August 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted mostly in English, with the assistance of an interpreter in the Thai and English languages as necessary.
At the conclusion of the hearing on 19 June 2025 the applicant was given the opportunity to provide further evidence by 4 July 2025. She provided documents on 14 July 2025. The Tribunal listed the matter for further hearing on 6 August 2025. The applicant made a further written submission on 11 August 2025.
BACKGROUND
At the time of this decision, the applicant is a [Age]-year-old woman. The passport she provided to the Department says she was born in Bangkok, Thailand.
Movement records indicate the applicant first travelled to Australia on [in] February 2009 on a vocational education and training sector visa. She left Australia [in] July 2011, returned from [July] 2011 to [January] 2012, and returned to Australia [in]…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read 2518125 (Refugee) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] ARTA 1936
Decision Date: 2 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter under review involved a [Age]-year-old woman from Bangkok, Thailand, who had been in immigration detention in Australia since her previous visa was cancelled. The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming she left Thailand due to financial stress, safety concerns, and a lack of opportunities for a stable livelihood. She had borrowed money from informal lenders, which led to threats and harassment. She argued that the stigma associated with financial hardship in Thailand and the limited legal and social support made it impossible for her to seek help. The applicant claimed that she had no confidence in the authorities' ability to protect her if she returned to Thailand.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, including race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, if she returned to Thailand. The court also needed to consider the applicant's credibility and the consistency of her claims with the evidence provided.

The court examined the applicant's claims and evidence, noting that while she had provided details about the threats and harassment from informal lenders, there were inconsistencies in her evidence. For example, she did not provide documentation about the business loan, and there was no claim of physical harm. The court also noted that she was able to obtain a second loan, which suggested that access to loans was not as restricted as she claimed. The court further considered country information indicating that loan sharking is a criminal offence in Thailand, with interest rates limited by law, and that while police investigations and support for victims exist, accessing state protection can be difficult, with victims at high risk of harassment and a moderate risk of violence.

The court concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. The court found her claims to be inconsistent and not fully supported by the evidence. The decision to affirm the delegate's decision was upheld, meaning the applicant's appeal was dismissed. The applicant was not granted a protection visa.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

At the conclusion of the hearing on 19 June 2025 the applicant was given the opportunity to provide further evidence by 4 July 2025. She provided documents on 14 July 2025. The Tribunal listed the matter for further hearing on 6 August 2025. The applicant made a further written submission on 11 August 2025.BACKGROUND At the time of this decision, the applicant is a [Age]-year-old woman. The passport she provided to the Department says she was born in Bangkok, Thailand. Movement records indicate the applicant first travelled to Australia on [in] February 2009 on a vocational education and training sector visa. She left Australia [in] July 2011, returned from [July] 2011 to [January] 2012, and returned to Australia [in] March 2020. She has remained in Australia since that time. At the time of the hearing, the applicant was in immigration detention. CLAIMS AND EVIDENCEEvidence before the Department In the applicant’s protection visa application the applicant provided the following information about her claims for protection: · She left Thailand because of financial stress, safety concerns and the lack of opportunities for a stable livelihood. She left because of overwhelming financial difficulties. She borrowed money to come to Australia from informal lenders and has not been able to settle her outstanding loans. She is now facing threats from those lenders who are known to use aggressive tactics, and she fears she would be in immediate danger if she returned. She also left because there is limited legal and social support for people facing financial hardship. · The informal lenders have threatened her, and she has received phone calls and messages warning her of severe consequences if she fails to pay her debts. Some of the lenders have also approached her family demanding payment and causing extreme stress for her and her family. She also experienced economic hardship and struggled to survive and there is stigma associated with financial struggles and it was difficult to seek help or support. · She attempted to get help after she was threatened and harassed by the informal lenders but there was little protection from authorities or support systems. Law enforcement often does not intervene, and other support resources were limited. · She considered relocating but realised that moving would not provide a real solution, as the informal lenders have extensive networks and go to great lengths to track down individuals. · She fears that if she returns to Thailand she faces serious harm both physically and psychologically due to threats from informal lenders, financial instability and the lack of legal protections. Since she left Thailand, they have persistently contacted her and her family demanding payment and issuing threats and she believes the threats would escalate if she returned to Thailand. Even while she has been away her family has been harassed and pressured by lenders and they may continue to target her family using them as leverage to force her to pay. Without stable income she would be trapped in a cycle of debt making it impossible to escape the threats from lenders. She also fears they may force her into dangerous or exploitative conditions. Based on her experiences and that of others in similar situations, she has no confidence that the authorities would intervene to protect her. · In Thai society financial hardship carries a strong stigma and those who are unable to repay their debts face judgment and discrimination. Finding housing, employment or community support in a new area would be difficult.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

At the time of the hearing, the applicant was in immigration detention. CLAIMS AND EVIDENCEEvidence before the Department In the applicant’s protection visa application the applicant provided the following information about her claims for protection: · She left Thailand because of financial stress, safety concerns and the lack of opportunities for a stable livelihood. She left because of overwhelming financial difficulties. She borrowed money to come to Australia from informal lenders and has not been able to settle her outstanding loans. She is now facing threats from those lenders who are known to use aggressive tactics, and she fears she would be in immediate danger if she returned. She also left because there is limited legal and social support for people facing financial hardship. · The informal lenders have threatened her, and she has received phone calls and messages warning her of severe consequences if she fails to pay her debts. Some of the lenders have also approached her family demanding payment and causing extreme stress for her and her family. She also experienced economic hardship and struggled to survive and there is stigma associated with financial struggles and it was difficult to seek help or support. · She attempted to get help after she was threatened and harassed by the informal lenders but there was little protection from authorities or support systems. Law enforcement often does not intervene, and other support resources were limited. · She considered relocating but realised that moving would not provide a real solution, as the informal lenders have extensive networks and go to great lengths to track down individuals. · She fears that if she returns to Thailand she faces serious harm both physically and psychologically due to threats from informal lenders, financial instability and the lack of legal protections. Since she left Thailand, they have persistently contacted her and her family demanding payment and issuing threats and she believes the threats would escalate if she returned to Thailand. Even while she has been away her family has been harassed and pressured by lenders and they may continue to target her family using them as leverage to force her to pay. Without stable income she would be trapped in a cycle of debt making it impossible to escape the threats from lenders. She also fears they may force her into dangerous or exploitative conditions. Based on her experiences and that of others in similar situations, she has no confidence that the authorities would intervene to protect her. · In Thai society financial hardship carries a strong stigma and those who are unable to repay their debts face judgment and discrimination. Finding housing, employment or community support in a new area would be difficult. There was also a typed record of an interview conducted on 24 March 2025 between the applicant and an officer of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection regarding the applicant’s Bridging Visa E application. It is not a verbatim (word for word) record but is the officer’s typed record. It notes that the applicant had a previous name [Name]. In that interview record, the applicant said that she could not go home because she borrowed from loan sharks and she wanted the opportunity to earn money to pay the debt, and to study so she can work when she returns to Thailand. She said that she came to Australia in 2009 to study language and she also did a Certificate III in [Subject 1]. When she went back to Thailand she opened a [workplace 1], but it did not succeed, and she borrowed money for the [workplace 1] and some for personal use. She borrowed about 200,000 baht in 2013 and paid 20,000 per month, and then she got another loan to come to Australia of about 30,000 baht. She tried to pay that back and transferred about $200-300 AUD a week, but then she met a guy and could not send money back. The interest grew and she now owes over 30,000 AUD. When asked why she applied for a protection visa she said it is so she can work in a [workplace 1] and get money to send back to Thailand, so her family does not have to. She said she now has a boyfriend in Australia. He has [young] children, and he is sick and cannot work.

Decision

Reasons for decision

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

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.