1712448 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm from money lenders and a former employer in Malaysia due to alleged outstanding debts. The applicant also claimed his family had been threatened and forced to disown him due to these debts.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether there was a real risk of significant harm if he were removed from Australia to Malaysia, engaging Australia's protection obligations. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding debts, threats, kidnapping, and the effectiveness of protection measures available in Malaysia.

The Tribunal found numerous credibility issues with the applicant's evidence. These included inconsistencies in his claims about the nature of his debts, a significant delay in applying for protection after arriving in Australia, and the implausibility of certain aspects of his account, such as the circumstances of his alleged kidnapping and the lack of corroborating evidence for his debts and threats. The Tribunal considered country information indicating that while predatory lending practices exist in Malaysia, the government and police do take action against them, and various agencies offer assistance to borrowers. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia, finding that his claims were not credible and that effective protection measures were available.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that Australia did not have protection obligations towards him under the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958.