1615588 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have been misled by a work agent in Malaysia into coming to Australia to work illegally, and expressed fear of being handed over to authorities, facing financial hardship and harm from the agent's associates, and being unable to relocate or rebuild his career upon return to Malaysia. He also stated he had borrowed money from loan sharks to fund his travel to Australia and feared repercussions for non-payment.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether Australia had protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing the applicant's claims of being pursued by a work agent and loan sharks, and the real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that it had taken into account relevant policy guidelines and country information. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence, particularly regarding his family's financial capacity and his resort to loan sharks. Crucially, the Tribunal concluded that it did not accept the applicant's claims of being pursued by a work agent or loan sharks, and therefore found no substantial grounds to believe there was a real risk of significant harm, including torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal from Australia. The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, as he failed to satisfy either the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion.