1729625 (Refugee)

1729625 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5931 (24 July 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1729625
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Malaysia
MEMBER:Rosa Gagliardi
DATE:24 July 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 24 July 2019 at 4:25pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – no appearance by applicant at hearing – fear of economic hardship – capacity to subsist – repayment of bank loan and threat of bankruptcy – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

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 dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 8 November 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia applied for the visa on 26 July 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet the relevant criteria.
On 24 June 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant via email sent to an address provided by the applicant for the purposes of the review to advise that the material before the Tribunal had been considered but it was unable to make a favourable decision on this information alone. Accordingly, the Tribunal invited the applicant to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues in his case, at a scheduled hearing to have been held on 17 July 2019 at [Town 1] Court House, [Town 1], NSW at 9.30am (NSW time).
The hearing invitation clearly stated that if the applicant was unable to attend the hearing, he needed to advise the Tribunal as soon as possible and include the reasons for making the request. The applicant was also notified that the Tribunal would only change the date if satisfied that he had a very good reason for being granted an adjournment. If the Tribunal did not advise that an adjournment had been granted, the applicant was to assume that the hearing would proceed on the scheduled date and time as set out in the invitation.
The hearing invitation also advised that if the applicant did not attend the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable the applicant to appear before the Tribunal.
Further, the applicant was sent, via SMS, reminders of the upcoming hearing to a phone number as provided by him for the purposes of the review: on 10 July 2019 and on 16 July 2019.
From the hearing response by the applicant it is not clear as to whether he intended to attend the hearing. He has not sought a postponement and he did not appear on the scheduled date and time of the hearing, despite the several occasions he was reminded via SMS. Nor has the applicant been in contact with the Tribunal to explain his non-attendance or to engage further in the review process by providing additional information, for example.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the ability to proceed to decision is only discretionary and that thought should be given to the use of such discretion fairly. The Tribunal considers, however, that it is not for the Tribunal to prosecute the applicant’s claims for him. Furthermore, the Tribunal is satisfied that all reasonable steps were taken to notify the applicant validly about the forthcoming hearing.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to proceed to make a decision on the review on the evidence available to it, particularly as the applicant has provided the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s decision for the purposes of the review.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (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.
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.
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 themself 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 of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant 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 applicant is [age] years of age. He arrived in Australia on a [temporary] visa [in] May 2017. He applied for a XA-866 Protection visa and associated Bridging visa was granted.
The applicant wrote in his application, in terms of why he was seeking protection in Australia:
I was earning good and I am only soul (sic) breadwinner for my own family. Someway around 2015 Malaysia economy become worst and this effected (sic) my business. To cover up my business I took personal loan and few bank loan but day by day my business become very worth and was forced to (?) my shop and I lost my income. Bank keep sending letters and calls asking my (sic) to pay bank the loan. They threatened me that they will give bankruptcy – need job and money to pay back my loan.
In terms of what the applicant thought would happen to him if he returned to Malaysia, he wrote, “If I return back to Malaysia, I will still have to pay all my debts. I don’t having saving to pay back the bank. Sure the bank will declare bankruptcy”. Further, he wrote, “There are no other country that support human rights better than Australia”.
In response to the question as to why he thought the authorities could not, or would not protect the applicant, he wrote, “It is impossible for me to live in Malaysia with fully debts. I need to settle my debts”.
Section 5AAA of the Act makes it clear that it is the applicant’s responsibility to specify all the particulars of a claim by the person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claims.
From the applicant’s claims it would appear that he is not making claims to fear harm in Malaysia because of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group. The applicant is claiming that he fears economic hardship in Malaysia. There is little to suggest, for example, that the applicant will be targeted on his return to Malaysia for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act by either state or non-state actors.
The Tribunal has considered that persecution must involve serious harm to the person and that while serious harm is not defined exhaustively in the Act, s.5(J)(5) provides instances of serious harm:
(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 persons capacity to subsist.
Bankruptcy claims
The applicant’s fears about becoming bankrupt and the associated statements about his business being forced to close, are vague and general and there are many gaps in the written evidence that the Tribunal would have liked to ask the applicant to flesh out at a hearing. For example, the Tribunal would have queried the applicant about the nature of his business and how it had failed; the extent of the debt; and whether in the two plus years he has been in Australia he has been able to work to service/extinguish the debt. The Tribunal would have also asked the applicant why he would not have been able to renegotiate any debt to be able to repay it in smaller amounts, and why given the strength of the economy in Malaysia, he could not find some work, even menial, which would have enabled him to service the debt, albeit at reduced rates.
The Tribunal would have also liked to have been able to query the applicant about the practical consequences of being bankrupt in Malaysia, given that the country information does not appear to raise any issues of persecution or unreasonableness as far as Malaysian bankruptcy laws are concerned.
Regardless of the limited detail provided in the applicant’s application for the purposes of the review, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claims that his business failed and he may face bankruptcy on return to Malaysia.
Country information shows that bankruptcy in Malaysia involves the process whereby a debtor who owes money to a creditor is declared bankrupt following a court order known as an Adjudication Order from the High Court against him or her.[1] However, information showed that the government had been considering making amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1967 to increase the maximum threshold of RM30,000 to RM50,000 before a person is declared bankrupt. Aside from that the government was also looking at reducing the number of years before a person who has been declared can apply for a court discharge. Currently, a person declared bankrupt can only do so after 5 years, but the proposed change would reduce it to 3 years.[2]
[1] ‘What You Must Know about Bankruptcy in Malaysia’, 18 December 2017, accessed on 19 July 2019.
[2] Ibid.
On the basis of the information before it the Tribunal is not satisfied that any inconvenience or set back experienced by the applicant as a result of him having being declared bankrupt if he is returned to Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, amounts to a real chance of the applicant facing serious harm.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) as the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm on return to Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa); complementary protection.
For the purposes of the Act 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.
Having considered the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that there are no 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 he will suffer significant harm on account of being declared bankrupt. The Tribunal accepts that there are civil consequences for being declared bankrupt but these penalties do not amount to torture or inhuman treatment or punishment as set out above. As such, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
Claims of economic hardship
The applicant has claimed that his opportunities in Malaysia are limited economically and that he will not be able to earn an income that will satisfactorily support both himself and his family.
At a hearing the Tribunal would have liked to refer to the country information in the Departmental decision and other corroborating information which confirms that Malaysia is an upper-middle income country in which less than 1 percent of persons live in extreme poverty.[3]

Economic Overview
Malaysia is the 4th largest economy of South East Asia and it continues to perform strongly, with higher than anticipated growth of 5.9% in 2017, due to a strong global demand for electronics, increased demand for commodities, such as oil and gas, an improving labour market, a pro-cyclical budget and ample infrastructure spending. However, the government's declining expenditure as well as lower public and private investments reduced economic growth to 4.7% in 2018, and have led the IMF and World Bank to cut low growth estimates to 4.6% for 2019 and 4.8% for 2020.

During the past few years, a political crisis, low oil and commodity export prices and the slowdown in China have deeply affected Malaysia’s economy, putting pressure on the country's finances. Malaysia has the highest debt levels in the region (55.1% of GDP in 2018), with spending increasing faster than GDP. However, with the boost in oil prices and the government’s previous measures to reduce expenditures, by cutting subsidies, the fiscal deficit was reduced to 2.7% in 2018 and is projected to remain at 2.5% for 2019 and 2020. The government has embarked on a fiscal reform program aimed at achieving a balanced budget by 2020, including rationalisation of subsidies, and is also working to improve the 6% Goods and Services Tax (GST) system, introduced in 2015, with new computer systems that will minimise leakage in GST collection. The 2019 budget will continue the government's transformation plans to create new opportunities for wealth generation by ensuring the country is prepared for the digital economy. Budget measures include a more inclusive economy for the population: increased cash support for low-income families, extra funds for affordable housing projects, more entrepreneurship programmes to elevate lower-income groups and an increase in Malaysia’s competitiveness. The government faces various challenges, including the weakening of the Malaysian currency, the drop in oil prices (since oil revenues account for 30% of state revenue) and the fall in commodity export prices. Inflation fell to 1.0%-1.5% in 2018 (from 3.8% in 2017) but is expected to rise again in 2019 and 2020 to 2.3% and 2.6%, respectively.

[3] The World Bank in Malaysia, The World Bank, March 2019, accessed on 18 July 2019.
[4] Santander/TradePortal, Economic and Political Outline Malaysia, June 2019, accessed on 19 July 2019.
Malaysia is on track to achieving high-income status over the coming years. The country has one of the highest standards of living in Southeast Asia and a very low unemployment rate (3.2% in 2018). However, the New Economic Model introduced by the current Prime Minister Najib, seeks to improve the Malaysian economy further, by doubling per capita income by 2020. The 11th Malaysia Plan charts a path toward advanced economy status and greater inclusion, through a range of development issues such as equity, inclusiveness, environmental sustainability, human capital development, and infrastructure.[4]
The Tribunal has taken into account that the social welfare system in Malaysia is still limited, while traditional social roles mean that families provide support for the elderly and sick. Old age, survivor and disability payments and employment injury compensation are among the payments available to eligible individuals, although credible sources state that the overall scope of social welfare coverage remains limited.[5]
[5]
In August 2017, the Malaysian Government introduced legislation into parliament that would provide unemployment benefits for three to six months.[6]
[6] ‘New Bill introduces conditional unemployment benefits’, Malaysiakini, 1 August 2017, CISEDB50AD5044.
The applicant has proven flexible and resourceful in finding the funds to come to Australia to a foreign country. At a hearing the Tribunal would have asked the applicant why in the context of the country information above, he considered that he would suffer economic hardship that would prevent him from subsisting. The applicant has knowledge about setting up and running a business (even if he is unable to utilise these skills as a business owner immediately) and has general skills that could be applied across a range of occupations.
On the basis of the information before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will suffer any serious harm because he will be prevented by the state or any other actor to earn a living if he is returned to Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, and/or that any challenge involving finding work amounts to a real risk of the applicant facing significant harm, given the relatively negligible rates of extreme poverty in Malaysia.
For the reasons above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) on account of the Malaysian economy, as the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm on return to Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
In terms of Australia’s complementary protection obligations (s.36(2)(aa)), the court has held that the real risk test imposes the same standard as the real chance test application to the assessment of well-founded fear.

The Tribunal has already made a finding that the applicant has the capacity and inclination to find work anywhere in Malaysia. While the Tribunal accepts that he may face some challenges and difficulties arising from finding work to support himself and family, and to repay his debts if removed from Australia, the Tribunal does not accept on the strength of the country information that the applicant would not be able to access paid employment of some sort anywhere in Malaysia.
Furthermore, the Tribunal finds there is no intention on the part of the Malaysian Government in its role of managing the economy in combination of market forces to inflict significant harm, including subjecting the applicant to cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to the applicant’s country of reference.
Having considered the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that there are no 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 he will suffer significant harm on account of the state of the economy in his home country.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Rosa Gagliardi

Member
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (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.
…
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 them 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 family
For 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 family
For 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.
..
36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(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.
…

DFAT Country Information Report Malaysia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT),

19 July 2016, CIS38A80121311.

[2019] AATA 5931

24 July 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Jurisdiction