1513056 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, sought a protection visa in Australia. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced significant harm if returned to Malaysia, based on claims of threats from a gangster and a police officer, and alleged mistreatment by police. The applicant arrived in Australia in December 2013 and lodged his protection visa application in April 2015. The case was heard by a member of the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Additionally, the Tribunal was required to consider whether the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which involves a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The Tribunal also had to assess the applicant's credibility, taking into account the limited information provided and the delay in lodging the application.

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 56, considering relevant policy guidelines and country information. It acknowledged the Full Federal Court's comments in *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan* (1996) regarding a reasonable approach to credibility assessment. The Tribunal found that the applicant was a citizen of Malaysia and that Malaysia was the receiving country. However, the Tribunal found no evidence to suggest the applicant had a right to enter and reside in a safe third country. Crucially, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) and there was no suggestion that the applicant satisfied section 36(2) as a family member of a person holding a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.