FIU24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1466
•5 September 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
FIU24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1466
File number(s): BRG 452 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE EGAN Date of judgment: 5 September 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION LAW – Whether Tribunal erred in the way it considered the applicant’s claims – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s. 5H(1), s. 5J, s. 36(2)(a), s. 36(2)(aa) Cases cited: BUP24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 785
DEZ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 240
Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
SZRKG v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1389
WZAVW v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2016] FCA 760
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 19 Date of hearing: 4 September 2025 Place: Brisbane Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appearing on their own behalf Solicitor for the Respondents: Ms X. Tran, Sparke Helmore ORDERS
BRG 452 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: FIU24
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE EGAN
DATE OF ORDER:
5 SEPTEMBER 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the First Respondent be amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.
2.The name of the Second Respondent be amended to ‘Administrative Review Tribunal’.
3.The Originating Application for Review filed on 21 July 2024 be dismissed.
4.The Applicants pay the First Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the Application for Review fixed in the amount of $6,500.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE EGAN
The applicant is a citizen of Thailand who arrived in Australia on 16 June 2019 on a Visitor Visa.
On 13 August 2019, the applicant applied for a Protection Visa.
On 24 September 2019, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the protection visa application. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee under the provisions of s. 5H(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), or that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution under the provisions of s. 5J of the Act. The delegate found that no protection obligations were owed under either s. 36(2)(a) or s. 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
On 2 October 2019, the applicant filed an application for review of the decision of the delegate by the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
On 2 July 2024, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments in support of his claim. He was assisted by an interpreter at the time.
On 3 July 2024, the Tribunal in its written reasons affirmed the decision of the delegate.
On 21 July 2024, the applicant filed an Originating Application for Review of the decision of the Tribunal.
Grounds of Review
The grounds of review as set out in the application were as follows:
1. Purpose of Coming to Australia: I arrived in Australia with the intention of seeking work and stability, having faced financial difficulties in Thailand due to substantial debts incurred in 2018. I borrowed a significant amount of money amounting to 1 million baht, with compounded interest totaling 2 million baht, resulting in a total debt of 3 million baht. This debt has placed me under immense financial strain and has significantly impacted my ability to secure a stable livelihood in Thailand.
2. Family Ties: Despite being divorced from my ex-wife for several years, I maintain a close relationship with our three daughters, aged 29, 20, and 10 years old. I endeavor to provide financial support for their education whenever possible, demonstrating my ongoing commitment to their well-being and development.
3. Health Concerns: I am currently in poor health and require ongoing medical attention. Remaining in Australia is crucial for accessing the necessary healthcare services and ensuring my wellbeing.
4. Safety and Fear of Persecution: Returning to Thailand poses substantial risks for me, both financially and in terms of personal safety. The debt I owe has made me vulnerable to threats and intimidation from creditors. Moreover, the socio-economic and political situation in Thailand continues to present challenges, exacerbating my concerns for personal safety and security.
5. In light of these grounds, I respectfully request the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to reconsider the decision regarding my protection visa application. I seek the opportunity to establish a stable and secure life in Australia, where I can contribute positively to society and continue to support my family.
Though largely argumentative and in the nature of submissions, the gist of the applicant’s claims was that because he had received a loan from a loan shark back in Thailand which he was unable to repay, the applicant feared that he was vulnerable to threats and intimidation from creditors if he was to return there. The applicant claimed in his protection visa application that he could be hit, injured or killed if he was to return to Thailand. [1]
[1] Exhibit 1 – Court Book p.10
At the time of the hearing before the Court, the applicant was in default of a Court order made by Registrar Downing on 24 January 2025, namely order 5.1 which required the applicant to file written submissions at least 28 days before the date of the Court hearing. It is always relevant on a balancing exercise to consider whether an applicant in default ought to be granted liberties in relation to deficiencies in the evidence put before either the Tribunal or the Court. Due administration of justice principles ought not bend to accepting that non-compliance with Court orders be excused because a self-represented litigant, on one view, might be seen to have a language difficulty. Once an applicant has engaged with the Court’s process, it is not for the Court to guide the applicant as to how their case is presented. The Court ought to expect that orders will be complied with, and that the proceeding will be conducted in a proper way.
At the commencement of the hearing before the Court, the applicant was asked if he wished to make any further submissions concerning his claims. His responses to several requests made of him were as follows:
‘I cannot yet return to Thailand as I don’t have enough money to repay the debt. I also want to earn money to send my children to school as well. I would like to stay for another 4-5 years then I can return.’
The significance of the above answers must be looked at in the context of the findings of the Tribunal.
At [21] – [23] inclusive of its reasons, the Tribunal set out relevant country information concerning domestic violence issues in Thailand which had been prepared by DFAT, Thai police, and information from the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre.
At [54] – [66] of its reasons, the Tribunal closely set out its reasons for finding that any fears of the applicant about returning to Thailand were not well-founded. The Tribunal found as follows:
54. The applicant (in summary) claims that he left Thailand because of his distrust of the judiciary, law enforcement, the poor economy and because he had endured hardship and had borrowed money from a loan shark. He further claims that he was unable to repay his debt to the loan shark and although he was not harmed in Thailand, he believes that if he returns to Thailand he will be harmed or killed by his creditor the loan shark.
55. At the hearing the applicant reiterated his claims and focused on his debt to the loan shark and his fears of being harmed in Thailand because he had not repaid his debt. He told the Tribunal that he had left Thailand because he had been unemployed and could no longer make his loan repayments. He further told the Tribunal that the had entered into a loan agreement with the loan shark, a local influential businessman in his province and that his house had been forfeited to the loan shark after he failed to repay the loan and in accordance with the loan agreement. He said that he currently owed about 2 million Thai Baht and had not made any further repayments since having left Thailand.
56. The applicant in evidence at the hearing told the Tribunal that although he had not been harmed by the loan shark or his agents in Thailand he feared returning to Thailand as he feared being harmed because he had not repaid his loan.
57. Having accepted the applicants' evidence as to his debt to the local loan shark and having been subjected to threats of harm; the Tribunal has considered the provisions of s SL of the Act.
58. Section SL of the Act provides that a person is to be treated as a member of a particular social Group (PSG) other than that person's family if a characteristic, other than a fear of persecution, is shared by each member of the group, and the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, that characteristic, and that characteristic is innate or immutable or must be so fundamental to a member's identity or conscience that the member should not be forced to renounce it, or it must distinguish the group from society.
59. In its consideration of the information and evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant can be found to be a member of a PSG, being 'a victim of a loan shark threatened with harm and demands for repayment of a loan'.
60. However, under questioning at the hearing the applicant accepted the country information as to the arrest and prosecution of loan sharks by the Thai authorities and further told the Tribunal that he was aware of such police actions after hearing about police anti-loan shark operations in Thailand through news reports.
61. Further the applicant accepted that he could make a complaint about the loan shark to police and that he may obtain assistance from the authorities but given the loan shark was an influential member of the community he was not confident that he would be protected.
62. In this regard, the Tribunal prefers the country information as has been outlined above at paragraphs 21 to 23, and although accepting that there may be some local instances of corruption is satisfied that the applicant can, if he so needs to, obtain protection from an authority of Thailand.
63. In this regard, the Tribunal finds that such protection measures are as is outlined in s SLA of the Act. Further, given the media articles outlined above at paragraphs 22 and 23, the Tribunal finds that the authorities in Thailand have shown a continued willingness and success in combatting loan sharks such that the applicant would not face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm on account of his membership of the PSG being 'a victim of a loan shark threatened with harm and demands for repayment of a loan'.
64. Additionally, as to the applicant's claims as to the economic climate in Thailand, the applicant at the hearing told the Tribunal that he could, if he returned to Thailand, obtain employment that would allow him to make repayments towards his outstanding debt and that he stated in summary of his matter; that he wanted to remain in Australia so he could earn better money than he could in Thailand and this would allow him to pay for his daughters' education and repay his loan faster than he could if he was to return to Thailand. However, the Tribunal notes that such claims as to possible hardships because of the economic situation in Thailand are not for any of the reasons that are outlined ins 5J(1)(a) of the Act.
65. Therefore, on the evidence before it, and for the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm if he was in the reasonably foreseeable future to return to Thailand on account of his debt to a loan shark and the economic situation in Thailand.
66. The Tribunal finds that the applicant's fears in this regard are not well-founded.
Based upon the evidence before it, it was open for the Tribunal to find that the applicant was not owed protection or complimentary protection obligations.
The Court accepts the submission made on behalf of the first respondent that the applicant seeks an impermissible merits review of the decision. That is particularly so in circumstances where the applicant has failed to particularise his claims – a failure which, in itself, justified dismissal of his claims. [2]
[2] DEZ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 240 at [37] per Flick J;
Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375 at [309] – [316] per Beazley JA;
SZRKG v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1389 at [22] per Farrel J;
WZAVW v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2016] FCA 760 at [35] per Gilmore J;
BUP24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 785 at [9] – [19].
The applicant has failed to establish jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
The grounds of review are without merit and are dismissed.
The court will hear the parties to costs.
I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Egan. Associate:
Dated: 4 September 2025
0
5
1