1619915 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Malaysian citizen who claimed to be fleeing threats from illegal money lenders. The applicant alleged he had received death threats and lived in fear, leading him to seek refuge in Australia to resolve his debts. The applicant's wife also provided evidence in support of his claims. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically considering both the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) and the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, the applicant would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal was also mandated to consider relevant policy guidelines and country information assessments.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. It found that the applicant's claims regarding threats from loan sharks were vague and unsubstantiated by documentary evidence. While the applicant's wife provided oral evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a Convention link to a Refugee Convention ground, nor had he demonstrated a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia. The Tribunal noted that the applicant possessed a Malaysian passport and identification documents, and that his claims did not meet the threshold for complementary protection.