1705988 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Malaysia, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant's initial claims for protection were based on an alleged illegitimate debt to loan sharks and the poor state of the Malaysian economy, which he asserted would lead to threats and an inability to find employment upon return. However, during the Tribunal hearing, the applicant recanted these claims, admitting he had been advised to fabricate them by an acquaintance in Australia. He stated his true motivation for wishing to remain in Australia was the availability of employment and his ability to financially support his family, whose circumstances in Malaysia had deteriorated.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Malaysia under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Malaysia, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's evidence, including his initial claims and his subsequent retraction, in light of the relevant provisions of the Migration Act and associated guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a) as he had admitted his claims of persecution were fabricated. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This conclusion was based on the applicant's own evidence that his initial claims were untrue, and there was no other basis presented to suggest he would suffer significant harm upon return to Malaysia. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2)(b) or (c) as a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.