1705835 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant, a Malaysian citizen, a protection visa. The applicant arrived in Australia in September 2019 and claimed she feared persecution upon return to Malaysia due to her involvement in a multilevel marketing business that turned out to be a scam. She alleged she had lost her investment, borrowed money from a loan shark, and was subsequently threatened and beaten by her "downline" and the loan shark, who she claimed had connections throughout the country and had warned her not to involve the police for fear of harm to her family.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there was a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (the Act), or if there were substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal to Malaysia, she would suffer significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the relevant country information and the statutory criteria for protection visas.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on inconsistencies and a lack of credibility in the applicant's evidence. It noted discrepancies between her initial application and her testimony regarding her religion, her involvement with an assistant in preparing her application, and the details of her financial situation and the loan. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims regarding the loan shark and her downline were not substantiated to the required standard, particularly in light of her inconsistent accounts and the lack of evidence of any attempts to seek protection from Malaysian authorities. The Tribunal also considered updated country information regarding Malaysia, which did not corroborate the applicant's specific fears in a way that would establish a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.