1514726 (Refugee)

The applicant, claiming to be a citizen of Malaysia, sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse her a protection visa. The delegate had found the applicant's claims not credible and that she did not face a well-founded fear of persecution, nor did she meet the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The applicant alleged persecution by the Malaysian government due to her family's protest against the relocation of a Chinese landmark, which led to her father's arrest, torture, and death in prison, and her mother's subsequent arrest.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under section 36 of the Act, including the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) and the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims and determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, she would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal was also required to consider relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal found that Malaysia was the country of reference and the receiving country for the assessment of the applicant's claims. While acknowledging that parts of the applicant's evidence regarding the relocation dispute appeared plausible, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that her claims of facing serious harm lacked credibility because she had exaggerated the risk. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not attended an interview to present her claims to the delegate and had been an unlawful non-citizen for a significant period, which raised doubts about the genuineness of her fear at the time of her departure from Malaysia.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the grant of a protection visa.