1719494 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Malaysia, sought review of a decision affirming the refusal of her protection visa application. She claimed to fear persecution upon return to Malaysia due to threats from loan sharks who had harassed her and her fiancé (now husband) over an unpaid loan. The applicant alleged that the loan sharks had threatened them, vandalised their home, and warned them not to involve the police, leading them to flee Malaysia.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or alternatively, whether she faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, thus engaging Australia's complementary protection obligations. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims and consider whether effective protection measures were available in Malaysia.

The Tribunal found the applicant's claims to be lacking in credibility and was not satisfied that she had a well-founded fear of persecution. It noted that the applicant had applied for a protection visa significantly after her arrival in Australia and that her claims were largely based on a statement that was a copy of her husband's. The Tribunal also considered the provisions relating to complementary protection, which require substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm upon removal. However, without a credible fear of persecution or significant harm, these provisions were not engaged.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that she did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.