1723444 (Refugee)

Case [2023] AATA 4020


1723444 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4020 (29 August 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1723444

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Malaysia

MEMBER:Peter Katsambanis

DATE:29 August 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 29 August 2023 at 2:15pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – particular social group – victim of loan shark – physical assault – torture – violent messages – state protection – internal relocation – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5AAA, 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Re Ruddock; Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 [2003] HCA 60
WAKK v MIMIA [2005] FCAFC 225

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

  1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 4 September 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

  2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia, applied for the visa on 24 February 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

    CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

  3. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

  4. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

  5. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country…

Continue reading 1723444 (Refugee)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
1723444 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4020
Case
[2023] AATA 4020
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a Malaysian citizen of Chinese ethnicity, sought a protection visa in Australia. The dispute arose from the applicant's claim that she was being pursued by a financier and his bodyguards in Malaysia due to guaranteeing a loan for a friend that had defaulted. The applicant asserted that she had fled Malaysia to escape this persecution and feared returning. The decision was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues. Firstly, whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which would entitle her to protection under section 36(2)(a). Secondly, if she did not meet the refugee criterion, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal to Malaysia, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding the loan and the subsequent threats and harassment from the financier. It also took into account the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information assessments as mandated by Ministerial Direction No. 84. The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest that the applicant had any right to reside in a country other than Malaysia, thus she was not excluded from Australia's protection obligations under section 36(3). Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE The issues in this case are whether there is a real chance that if the applicant returns to Malaysia she will be persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) for the purposes of s 36(2)(a) of the Act and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm for the purposes of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.Protection Visa Application In her protection visa application form the applicant claimed that she was born in [a named town], Malaysia on [date]. She stated that she was a Malaysian citizen of Chinese ethnicity, and she listed her religion as ‘Chinese’. She had never been married and had no children. Her parents and one [sibling] were living in Malaysia. The applicant claimed that she arrived in Australia [in] December 2016 on her valid Malaysian passport and as the holder of a valid Australian visitor visa. She stated that she had not travelled outside Malaysia on any other occasion over the past 30 years. The applicant stated that she had lived at the same residential address in Malaysia from [specified year] until she came to Australia. She claimed to have worked as a salesgirl selling [product 1] in Malaysia from 2000 until she came to Australia. She listed no education history or qualifications. On her application form, the applicant claimed that she was seeking protection in Australia so that she did not have to return to Malaysia. She claimed that she had a friend named [Friend A] who was suffering financial problems and asked the applicant to help her. The friend owed a lot of debt and needed some money to settle down, so she begged the applicant for help. The applicant took this friend to a financier to borrow money without telling her family. The applicant guaranteed the loan for her friend. The friend borrowed around [amount] ringgits (or around AU$[amount]) from this financier who was called [Person A]. The financier trusted the applicant, which was why he loaned the money to her friend. A few months later, the financier rang asking the friend for payment and also asked the applicant to call her friend, but the friend could not be reached. The financier then asked the applicant to repay the money and started to torture and blackmail the applicant by sending his bodyguards. The applicant was worried that because of her, the rest of her family would suffer. She had no choice so she ran away from her home and came to Australia, where she could live without fear.

Decision

Reasons for decision

There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant has any right to enter and reside in any other country apart from Malaysia. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not excluded from Australia’s protection obligations pursuant to s 36(3) of the Act.DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.Peter KatsambanisMemberATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 19585 (1) Interpretation…cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:(a) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or(b) pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;but does not include an act or omission:(c) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or(d) arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.…degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.…torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:(a) for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or(b) for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or(c) for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or(d) for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or(e) for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.…receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.…5H Meaning of refugee(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:(a) in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or(b) in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.…5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:(a) the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and(b) there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and(c) the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:(a) conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or(b) conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or(c) without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and(b) the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and(c) the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:(a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty;(b) significant physical harassment of the person;(c) significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;(d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;(e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;(f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of familyFor the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:(i)the first person has ever experienced; or(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.5L Membership of a particular social group other than familyFor the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:(a) a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and(b) the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and(c) any of the following apply:(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.5LA Effective protection measures(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:(i)the relevant State; or(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:(a) the person can access the protection; and(b) the protection is durable; and(c) in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.…36 Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act…(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or(b) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:(a) the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or(c) the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or(d) the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or(e) the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:(a) it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or(b) the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or(c) the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.…

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.Mandatory considerations In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE The issues in this case are whether there is a real chance that if the applicant returns to Malaysia she will be persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) for the purposes of s 36(2)(a) of the Act and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm for the purposes of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.Protection Visa Application In her protection visa application form the applicant claimed that she was born in [a named town], Malaysia on [date]. She stated that she was a Malaysian citizen of Chinese ethnicity, and she listed her religion as ‘Chinese’. She had never been married and had no children. Her parents and one [sibling] were living in Malaysia. The applicant claimed that she arrived in Australia [in] December 2016 on her valid Malaysian passport and as the holder of a valid Australian visitor visa. She stated that she had not travelled outside Malaysia on any other occasion over the past 30 years. The applicant stated that she had lived at the same residential address in Malaysia from [specified year] until she came to Australia. She claimed to have worked as a salesgirl selling [product 1] in Malaysia from 2000 until she came to Australia. She listed no education history or qualifications. On her application form, the applicant claimed that she was seeking protection in Australia so that she did not have to return to Malaysia. She claimed that she had a friend named [Friend A] who was suffering financial problems and asked the applicant to help her. The friend owed a lot of debt and needed some money to settle down, so she begged the applicant for help. The applicant took this friend to a financier to borrow money without telling her family. The applicant guaranteed the loan for her friend. The friend borrowed around [amount] ringgits (or around AU$[amount]) from this financier who was called [Person A]. The financier trusted the applicant, which was why he loaned the money to her friend. A few months later, the financier rang asking the friend for payment and also asked the applicant to call her friend, but the friend could not be reached. The financier then asked the applicant to repay the money and started to torture and blackmail the applicant by sending his bodyguards. The applicant was worried that because of her, the rest of her family would suffer. She had no choice so she ran away from her home and came to Australia, where she could live without fear.