1716420 (Refugee)

The applicant, who arrived in Australia on a tourist visa in February 2017, sought a protection visa, claiming fear of economic harm, government corruption, political and economic instability, and racist practices in Malaysia. The applicant, of Dusun ethnicity from Sabah, also made new claims at the hearing regarding government and bank loans, the risk of bankruptcy if these loans were not repaid, and the inability to secure employment or support his family upon return. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) considered these claims in light of the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) (refugee criterion) or section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection criterion). This required an assessment of whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm if returned to Malaysia, considering his claims of economic hardship, potential bankruptcy, and the general country conditions. The Tribunal also had to evaluate the credibility of the applicant's claims, particularly in light of inconsistencies and a lack of detail in his initial application and subsequent evidence.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. Despite the applicant's claims about loans and potential bankruptcy, the Tribunal found his evidence regarding his employment history, the circumstances of the loans, and the alleged corruption to be undetailed, inconsistent, and lacking in credibility. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient information about his employment history or the specifics of the loans and contracts, and that his oral evidence was rambling and difficult to follow. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered country information, which did not support the applicant's claims of widespread persecution or significant harm. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy any of the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not meet the requirements of section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).