1713615 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual from Malaysia. The applicant's protection visa application, initially lodged by a migration agent, contained claims of serious harm from money lenders due to a business partner's alleged debts. However, at the hearing before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the applicant disavowed these claims, stating he was unaware of their content and that he believed he was applying for a work visa. The Tribunal was therefore required to determine the merits of the protection visa application based on the applicant's evidence presented at the hearing.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act), and alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia, the applicant would suffer significant harm. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's oral evidence against the claims made in the initial application and considering the definition of "significant harm" in the context of the applicant's stated concerns.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's oral evidence did not support the claims of being threatened by money lenders, being bankrupt, or having a business partner who suffered severe injury. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real chance of serious harm upon return to Malaysia. While the Tribunal accepted the applicant's concerns regarding the COVID-19 situation and potential employment difficulties in Malaysia, it concluded that these concerns did not amount to "significant harm" as defined by the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the protection visa.