1706449 (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 claimed to fear serious harm from a loan shark to whom he owed a significant debt, alleging past physical assaults and threats. He also stated he had not sought assistance from Malaysian authorities due to a belief they could not provide adequate protection and that relocation within Malaysia was not feasible due to his established livelihood and lack of contacts elsewhere.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there was a real chance the applicant would be persecuted for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or if, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, there was a real risk of significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of country information and assess the credibility of the evidence presented.

The Tribunal found the applicant's claims to be vague, inconsistent, and implausible, noting a lack of supporting documentation and omitted information. It also considered the applicant's previous travel to Australia and other countries, his voluntary returns, and his work in Malaysia and Australia on tourist visas. The Tribunal had regard to country information indicating that loan sharking is illegal in Malaysia, that police have broad powers to investigate and prosecute such activities, and that government efforts are being made to combat corruption and illegal money lending. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, and therefore, the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa should be affirmed.