1514626 (Refugee)
Case
•
[2016] AATA 4036
•22 June 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
1514626 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4036
[2016] AATA 4036
22 June 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant sought review of a decision by the Refugee Tribunal to affirm the refusal of a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear returning to Malaysia due to threats from loan sharks to whom he owed money, stating he had been threatened once and feared further harm, including kidnapping at the border, due to the loan shark's extensive contacts. He also claimed he could not report the matter to the police due to a lack of proof and his past drug use, which he believed would prejudice his case.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act), which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Alternatively, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, there is a real risk of suffering significant harm.
The Tribunal found the applicant to be not a credible witness, noting significant discrepancies and implausible claims in his evidence. It did not accept that the applicant owed money to a loan shark, had been threatened, or feared harm upon return to Malaysia. The Tribunal considered country information indicating that illegal money lending is an offence in Malaysia and that police are willing to take action, particularly where violence and intimidation are involved, and that victims are encouraged to report such matters. Despite the applicant's reasons for not reporting to the police, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from loan sharks. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding he did not meet either the refugee or complementary protection criteria.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act), which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Alternatively, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, there is a real risk of suffering significant harm.
The Tribunal found the applicant to be not a credible witness, noting significant discrepancies and implausible claims in his evidence. It did not accept that the applicant owed money to a loan shark, had been threatened, or feared harm upon return to Malaysia. The Tribunal considered country information indicating that illegal money lending is an offence in Malaysia and that police are willing to take action, particularly where violence and intimidation are involved, and that victims are encouraged to report such matters. Despite the applicant's reasons for not reporting to the police, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from loan sharks. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding he did not meet either the refugee or complementary protection criteria.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Natural Justice
-
Jurisdiction
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
1514626 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4036
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
Plaintiff M47/2018 v Minister for Home Affairs
[2019] HCA 17
Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
[1997] FCA 1198
MIMA v Rajalingam
[1999] FCA 179