1731205 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a protection visa to the applicant, who claimed to fear harm from loan sharks in Malaysia. The applicant's initial claims, made in a written application, alleged a debt of RM 15,000 to a loan shark, with increasing debt due to inability to make monthly payments, and fear of harm if the loan shark came to his house. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal considered the applicant's credibility, noting discrepancies between his written application and his oral evidence at the hearing. The applicant explained that a friend had assisted with the written application and had misrepresented his financial situation, stating he owed money to a loan shark when he had only a personal loan, which had since been repaid. The Tribunal placed greater weight on the oral evidence due to concerns about the diligence of the written submission. The court also considered extensive country information regarding Malaysia's economic conditions, including its classification as an upper-middle-income economy, its GDP growth, the impact of COVID-19, and poverty rates, as well as specific information about the state of Selangor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. While acknowledging the applicant's concerns about employment and the effects of COVID-19, the Tribunal concluded that these did not amount to a real risk of significant harm. The applicant's ability to secure employment in Australia and the general economic conditions and vaccination rates in Malaysia, coupled with the availability of government assistance and the potential for relocation within Malaysia, led the Tribunal to reject the claim that he would be unable to subsist or earn a livelihood. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would suffer significant harm under the complementary protection criteria, as his concerns about employment did not constitute a real risk of arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). There was also no suggestion that the applicant qualified as a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.