1731857 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an applicant for a protection visa. The applicant arrived in Australia in September 2017 and lodged a written claim for protection, alleging threats and violence in Malaysia related to a business loan and refusal to engage in illegal activities. The applicant's representative later submitted that the applicant was an economic migrant who had made false claims in his protection application, acknowledging these statements were untrue and apologising for a "grossly unfounded/futile protection visa application." The representative also sought a referral to the Minister for intervention due to the COVID-19 lockdown, arguing the applicant could not safely return to Malaysia.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met any of the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) (refugee criterion) or section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection criterion), or as a family member under section 36(2)(b) or (c). The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information assessments, as mandated by Ministerial Direction No. 84.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's representative conceded that the applicant was an economic migrant and that the statements made in the original protection application were untrue. The applicant himself acknowledged the incorrectness of his prior statements. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's request for a referral to the Minister for intervention but decided not to make such a referral, noting that the applicant could still make a direct request to the Minister.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.