1708397 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to be known as [Name 1], born in Malaysia. The applicant alleged he had borrowed money from a loan shark due to business problems, and subsequently sold his car to cover interest payments. The applicant's claims were made in a protection visa application lodged in September 2016, where he also stated he had used a fraudulent travel document to depart Malaysia, obtained through corrupt government officials. The case was heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine two primary issues. Firstly, whether there was a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted in Malaysia for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1)(a) of the Act, for the purposes of section 36(2)(a). Secondly, if the refugee criterion was not met, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant's removal to Malaysia, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, pursuant to section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The court's reasoning focused on the applicant's credibility, noting inconsistencies and contradictions in his evidence. The applicant's claims regarding his identity, ethnicity, and previous dealings with loan sharks were found to be unreliable. The court also considered the applicant's admission of using a fraudulent travel document and obtaining it through corrupt officials, which raised further concerns about his candour. The court applied the principles of refugee and complementary protection as outlined in the Act, and considered relevant guidelines and country information. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, as there was no suggestion he met the requirements of section 36(2) of the Act.