1704870 (Refugee)

This matter concerned a review of a decision to refuse the grant of a protection visa to an applicant. The applicant, who was unrepresented, sought review of the delegate's decision, which had refused the visa on the grounds that generalised claims relating to economic and political issues, or a high cost of living, did not constitute persecution for the purposes of the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the delegate found the applicant was not eligible for a protection visa under the complementary protection criteria in section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, as no particularised risk of harm directed at the applicant had been identified, nor had it been demonstrated how any claimed harm would amount to significant harm as required by section 36(2A) of the Act.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether the claims made regarding economic and political issues in Malaysia constituted persecution under the refugee provisions, and whether the applicant faced a particularised risk of significant harm under the complementary protection provisions. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to establish these claims, given the onus rests on the applicant to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal reasoned that generalised claims about economic and political issues or a high cost of living do not, in themselves, satisfy the criteria for persecution under the Act. The Tribunal noted that it is the applicant's responsibility to present their case fully and provide evidence to establish their claims, and that the Tribunal is not obliged to specify or assist in specifying the particulars of a claim. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's failure to identify a particularised risk of harm or demonstrate how any claimed harm would amount to significant harm. In light of these considerations, and the applicant's failure to establish the necessary criteria, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.