1730281 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by Mr A, who sought to avoid return to Malaysia. The dispute centred on whether Mr A had established a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia. The decision was made by Scott Clarey of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr A met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, on complementary protection grounds. This required the Tribunal to assess the specificity and credibility of Mr A's claims regarding harm from loan sharks and gangsters in Malaysia, and the capacity of Malaysian authorities to provide protection.

The Tribunal noted that Mr A had waived his right to a hearing and requested a decision be made "on the papers." The Tribunal found that Mr A's claims were vague and lacked specific detail, particularly concerning the alleged harm he feared. The Tribunal applied section 5AAA of the Act, which places the onus on the applicant to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence. Given the lack of specificity and Mr A's decision not to engage further in the review process, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr A had established a well-founded fear of persecution under the refugee criterion. Consequently, the Tribunal also found that Mr A did not meet the complementary protection criterion, as there were no substantial grounds to believe he faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that Mr A did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.