1707593 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by a Malaysian national. The applicant claimed to fear harm from gangsters in Malaysia and argued that the Malaysian police and legal system would be ineffective in providing protection. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, including assessing the credibility of his claims and the effectiveness of protection available in Malaysia.

The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia. This involved considering the applicant's personal circumstances, the general country information, and the effectiveness of the Malaysian police and legal system in providing protection. A key issue was the applicant's credibility, particularly in light of adverse information regarding his work history that contradicted his statements at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a citizen of Malaysia and that Malaysia was his receiving country. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's evidence was vague, undetailed, and illogical, and raised significant credibility concerns. Specifically, the Tribunal put to the applicant adverse information about his work history which differed substantially from his claims at the hearing. The applicant attributed this discrepancy to a person who had assisted him with his application and submitted false information without his knowledge, stating he did not read or write. Despite this explanation, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's credibility was marred, making it difficult to accept his account. The Tribunal also considered the provisions for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, as his claims were not credible and he did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.