1513167 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, sought a protection visa after arriving in Australia in August 2012 and becoming an unlawful non-citizen in November 2012. The applicant claimed to have fled Malaysia due to being forced into drug trafficking by a former employer, experiencing beatings when he refused, and facing police corruption that prevented him from reporting the situation. He feared being killed and that his family would be disturbed if he returned. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant's claims lacked detail and credible evidence. The matter was heard by the Tribunal, presided over by Sophia Panagiotidis.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Australia owed protection obligations to the applicant under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which relate to well-founded fears of persecution and complementary protection, respectively. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility and genuineness of the applicant's claims regarding his fear of harm in Malaysia, considering both his personal circumstances and the general country information pertaining to Malaysia.

The Tribunal considered country information regarding Malaysia, including reports of "Ops Cantas Khas," a police operation against criminal gangs, and acknowledged the existence of police corruption, with reports suggesting police may provide protection for illegal activities. While the Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that his former boss had bribed police in Perak to avoid charges and custodial sentences, thereby rendering him unable to obtain protection from authorities there, it did not accept the applicant's claim that his former boss had circulated a photograph of him with a reward. The Tribunal also found it unlikely the applicant would receive protection from authorities in other parts of Malaysia due to his criminal history. Crucially, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant could reasonably relocate to an area within Malaysia where he would not face a real risk of significant harm, and therefore did not satisfy section 36(2B)(a) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant. It found that the applicant did not meet the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa, nor the subsequent criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c). The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.