1706124 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, sought review of the Refugee Tribunal's decision to refuse their application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Malaysia due to alleged debts owed to loan sharks, which they asserted would lead to serious harm. The Tribunal had found the applicant's claims not to be credible, citing inconsistencies in their evidence and an unreasonable delay in lodging their protection visa application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the applicant's claims and whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or alternatively, whether they were owed complementary protection. This involved scrutinising the Tribunal's findings on the applicant's credibility, the nature of the alleged debts, and the potential for harm from loan sharks in Malaysia.

The court affirmed the Tribunal's findings, concluding that the applicant had failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The court found that the Tribunal had adequately considered the evidence, including the inconsistencies and the delay in lodging the application, and had made a reasonable assessment of the applicant's credibility. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant did not meet the criteria for complementary protection, as the alleged harm did not engage the relevant international protection obligations. The application for review was dismissed.