1725106 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Malaysian national. The applicant claimed that she had borrowed money from family and friends to establish a business in Malaysia, which subsequently failed due to economic conditions, leaving her unable to repay the loans. She contended that returning to Malaysia under these circumstances would prevent her from earning sufficient money to settle her debts within the given period and would make it difficult to rebuild her career. The decision was made by a Member of the Tribunal, Lilly Mojsin, based on the material before her, as the applicant did not appear at the hearing.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H, or if she qualified for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of suffering significant harm upon removal to Malaysia. This involved assessing the applicant's claims of economic hardship and her ability to repay debts as constituting a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a national of Malaysia and did not have a right to reside elsewhere, thus not being excluded from protection under subsection 36(3). Malaysia was accepted as her "receiving country." However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant's claims of owing money and the associated risks were not sufficiently substantiated due to her non-appearance. Without the opportunity to explore the details of the loans, the amounts borrowed, the lenders, and the repayment terms, or any steps taken to mitigate the risk, the Tribunal was unable to accept that the applicant owed money to anyone. Consequently, the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2)(a) for being a refugee, nor was there sufficient evidence to establish a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection criterion.

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