1723651 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Malaysian citizen, sought a protection visa in Australia after arriving in March 2017. The dispute concerned whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant, either under the refugee criterion or complementary protection grounds. The matter was heard by Christopher Smolicz of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee due to a well-founded fear of persecution in Malaysia, or if he qualified for complementary protection due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Malaysia. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claims of being an anti-government political activist facing death threats and his assertion that he left Malaysia due to these circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's stated reason for coming to Australia was to seek employment, having been promised work and a visa by an agent for a fee. He admitted that the information in his protection visa application was false and provided by the agent, and that he had no work rights upon arrival. Applying the principles of s.36(2)(a) and (aa) of the Migration Act 1958, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion due to a lack of a well-founded fear of persecution, nor did he establish a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria as a family member of a protection visa holder.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.