1719863 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming she would face torture and bullying from a loan shark if returned to Malaysia due to her husband's inability to repay a debt. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter was heard by Geraldine Hoeben of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. This involved assessing the credibility of her claims and the availability of independent, corroborative evidence to substantiate her account of the loan, the identity of the loan shark, and the nature of the alleged torture and bullying.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of evidence provided by the applicant to support her claims. Despite repeated requests, the applicant could not provide independent documentation regarding the loan, nor could she recall details of the familial conversations surrounding the loan's inception. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been alerted to the need for supporting evidence in previous departmental decisions and the Tribunal's hearing invitation, yet failed to produce any. While accepting her narrative as a version of events, the Tribunal questioned its genuineness in the absence of corroboration. The Tribunal also considered the provisions of Ministerial Direction No. 56 and relevant policy guidelines concerning complementary protection.

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