1730818 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Malaysian national. The applicant had arrived in Australia in March 2015 and, after a period of study and departure, returned in March 2017, subsequently applying for the visa. The delegate's decision, which was under review, was based on the applicant's claims regarding economic hardship and racial discrimination due to her ethnic Chinese background in Malaysia. The applicant's initial claims, which included abuse by her stepfather and psychological, mental, and emotional harm, were reportedly contradicted by her during an interview with the Department, where she stated the claims in her application form were incorrect and instead cited racial discrimination as the reason for leaving Malaysia.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for a refugee nexus reason or qualified for complementary protection. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims of harm, the nexus to protected characteristics, and the availability of protection in Malaysia, in accordance with sections 36 and 5H of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and relevant guidelines.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, concluding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa. While the applicant provided evidence of involvement in protests in Malaysia in 2013, including an injury sustained during a protest and subsequent difficulties in obtaining housing and employment, the Tribunal found that she did not have a subjective fear of returning to Malaysia. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the significant delay in the applicant's application for protection in Australia, having arrived in March 2017 and applied in May 2017, and the circumstances surrounding the completion of her application by an agent. The Tribunal found no basis for protection under either the refugee or complementary protection provisions.