1724344 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by a Malaysian national against the Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of her protection visa. The applicant claimed to have borrowed money from illegal money lenders in Malaysia, leading to harassment, threats, and physical violence when she was unable to make repayments. She also asserted that the police were inactive in addressing her situation. The applicant arrived in Australia in 2014 but did not lodge her protection visa application until 2017, during which time she remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, 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, as per section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The court was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and guidelines, including the Refugee Law Guidelines and Complementary Protection Guidelines.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, concluding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa. While acknowledging the applicant's account of borrowing money from illegal lenders and subsequent harassment, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five specified reasons. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had not demonstrated a real risk of suffering significant harm upon return to Malaysia, particularly in light of available public resources for debtors and initiatives by authorities, which suggested that effective protection measures might be available. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's delay in applying for a protection visa and her period as an unlawful non-citizen.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958, nor was she found to be a member of the same family unit as a person who met those criteria.