1725294 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Malaysian national. The applicant arrived in Australia in March 2016 and subsequently became an unlawful non-citizen. He applied for a protection visa, which was refused by the Department of Home Affairs, though he was granted a bridging visa. The applicant sought review of this decision before the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Australia owed protection obligations to the applicant under sections 36(2)(a) (refugee criterion) and 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection criterion) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia. The Tribunal also considered whether section 36(3) of the Act applied, which would preclude protection if the applicant had a right to enter and reside in another country.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding his family's disapproval of his wife, his removal from the family business, and his fear of physical assault and killing. It applied the principles of credibility assessment as outlined in cases such as *Guo v MIEA* and the UNHCR Handbook, noting that while the benefit of the doubt should be given to generally credible applicants, statements must be coherent, plausible, and not contrary to known facts. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not have a right to enter and reside in a country other than Malaysia, thus section 36(3) was not applicable. After considering the evidence and the applicant's account, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.