1732378 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an applicant from Malaysia. The applicant claimed to fear harm from an acquaintance with a criminal record who had allegedly assaulted her, damaged her property, and threatened her and her family. She asserted that the police had been unable to apprehend the individual despite her reports, and that she continued to face harassment. The applicant also raised concerns about other relationship violence and a late, unsupported claim that the father of her child was attempting to take the child away. The decision under review was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically concerning the risk of significant harm and the availability of protection or internal relocation within Malaysia. The court was required to consider the applicant's claims of persecution, the credibility of her evidence, and whether any risk she faced was personal or general to the population of Malaysia. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to another area within Malaysia where she would not face a real risk of significant harm, or if she could obtain protection from Malaysian authorities.

The Tribunal, in its reasoning, applied the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 84, taking into account relevant guidelines and country information. It found that the applicant's claims were not sufficiently credible or supported by evidence to establish a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal noted the implausibility of certain aspects of her account and the lack of corroboration for the more severe allegations. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had not demonstrated that she could not reasonably relocate to another area within Malaysia where she would be safe, nor that Malaysian authorities were unable to offer her protection. The Tribunal also considered that some of the risks described were faced by the population generally.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the relevant Act.