1800611 (Refugee)

1800611 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4062 (13 September 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 1800611

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Malaysia
MEMBER:L. Symons
DATE:13 September 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 13 September 2024 at 3:47pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – particular social group – victim of loan shark – race – ethnic Chinese – protection money – forced business closure – physical assault – threats from criminals – delay in applying for protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 424AA, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 20 December 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia, first arrived in Australia [in] July 2007 as the holder of a Visitor visa. On 31 August 2007, he was granted a [Student] visa. [In] October 2008, he departed Australia. [In] October 2015, he returned to Australia as the holder of a Visitor visa. On 4 May 2016, he was granted [another] Student visa. On 4 August 2017, he applied to for a Protection visa. On 11 August 2017, he was granted as associated Bridging visa. On 23 August 2017, his [Student] visa was cancelled. On 28 August 2017, he was granted a Bridging E visa.
On 20 December 2017, the Department of Immigration (the Department) refused to grant him the Protection visa on the basis that he is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. On 8 January 2018, he applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 6 June 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also heard oral evidence from his sister, [Sister A]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
The issues that arise on review are whether the applicant is owed Australia’s protection under the refugee criterion or under the complementary protection criterion.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a Protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a Protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a Protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
The applicant made the following claims in his Statement of Claims:
·He was born on [date] at Kedah in Malaysia. He is of Chinese ethnicity and is a Buddhist. He is a citizen of Malaysia.
·He invested [amount] ringgit to open a [business 1] in 2012. He borrowed 100,000 ringgit from a usury at a monthly interest rate of 20%. Government officers and Police would go to him for money. If he refused to give them money, they would say that fire prevention requirements or sanitation standards were not met. Government officers went to his [business 1] almost every day to play but did not pay any money. He put up with this because he did not want to offend the officers.
·In May 2015, Police officers went to his [business 1] and then asked for 1,000 ringgit. When he refused they became upset. They accused him of running the business illegally and “some guys” took [equipment] from his [business 1]. He went to [Authority 1] to complain about the Police officers. On the following day, he received a threatening telephone call from the Police. They said he would come to no good for complaining about them.
·On [a day in] (2015), the Police went to his [business 1] and said someone had complained about pornographic deals in his [business 1]. He became angry and criticised them for abusing their power. They called him a “Chinese pig”, fined him 5,000 ringgit and ordered him to shut down his business.
·He lost his source of income and was unable to pay the usury. He started receiving threatening telephone calls from a debt collector. Debt collectors often stopped him on the road and beat him. They went to his home and splashed paint on his doors and took valuable things from his home. He called the Police but they did not care about him.
·The debt collectors threatened and intimidated his wife and said she would have to drink with the guests to redeem his debt. His wife could not stand such threats and ran away from home. The debt collectors kept coming to him for money. He went into hiding “here and there”.
·Ethnic Chinese in Malaysia are marginalised and treated unfairly in relation to education, economics and politics. There are many restrictions on bank loans for ethnic Chinese in Malaysia. It is difficult for them to obtain employment in government and large enterprises. The anti-Chinese phenomenon in Malaysian society is serious. His personal safety was not guaranteed in Malaysia. In October 2015, he came to Australia. He urges the Australian government to provide him with protection.
The applicant filed with the Department a copy of the bio data page of his Malaysian passport issued [in] 2015 and expired [in] 2021.
The applicant was not offered an interview before the Department. On 20 December 2017, the Department refused to grant him the Protection visa on the basis that he is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
The applicant has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated 20 December 2017 which contains his immigration history. He has not filed any other documentary evidence with the Tribunal.
Receiving Country
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Malaysia and has provided a copy of his Malaysian passport to the Department. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that he is a citizen of Malaysia. The Tribunal finds that Malaysia is the receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection under the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion.
Third Country Protection
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is outside his country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that he has the right to enter and reside in any country other than his country of nationality.
Assessment of Claims
The applicant gave evidence that he received advice before preparing his application for a Protection visa. His [sister] prepared the documents. (She is an Australian citizen and has lived in Australia for 30 to 40 years). When asked whether he provided his [sister] with the information to prepare his documents, he responded “more or less”, “either way”. Most of the information was provided by him. When asked whether the information he gave her was true and correct, he responded that it was. He was satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete.
During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his background, family, education, employment, where he lived in Malaysia, his travel overseas, why he left Malaysia and why he fears returning to Malaysia. The Tribunal found aspects of his evidence to be contradictory, vague and implausible. There were inconsistencies between his written and oral evidence. He made new claims during the hearing. His conduct was not consistent with his claims. The Tribunal finds that he is not a reliable witness for the following reasons:
First, in his Statement of Claims, the applicant claimed that he invested [amount] ringgit to open a [business 1] in 2012. He borrowed 100,000 ringgit from a usury at a monthly interest rate of 20%.
During the hearing, the applicant made new claims and gave inconsistent evidence. He claimed that he borrowed 500,000 ringgit from the bank for the business. He borrowed money two or three times and used his property as security. When asked how much money he re-paid to the bank, he responded that he did not re-pay much.
The applicant gave evidence that his business was not doing well and he kept having trouble. He borrowed money from private lenders to cover the re-payments (to the bank). His debts grew larger and larger and he could not repay the loans. He used his credit cards to repay his loans. He sold his house before the bank could sell it and used the proceeds of sale to pay back the interest owing to the bank and also pay back other people. The principal on the loan is still owing to the bank. The Tribunal considers that it is unlikely that he would have been able to sell his house if the bank had used it as security for his loan. Even if he was allowed to sell his house, the Tribunal would expect that the bank would have required all of the proceeds of sale of the house to repay his debt to the bank.
The applicant stated that he thinks the bank took proceedings to have him declared a bankrupt. He then stated that the bank did not sue him but used a middleman to put pressure on him to pay the money or they would beat him up. He does not know how much he owes the bank. Later in the hearing, he stated that he decided to come to Australia when he became bankrupt. These are all new claims that were not made in his Statement of Claims. The Tribunal finds it implausible that the bank would have employed people to threaten to beat up customers who did not make payments on their bank loans or credit cards.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the money he borrowed from private money lenders. He stated that the private money lenders are not registered and operate in the dark. He borrowed about 200,000 ringgit from private money lenders. He could not recall when he borrowed the money. The interest rate was 4.5% weekly. He repaid about 20,000 to 30,000 ringgit to the private money lenders including what he repaid from the proceeds of sale of his house. Since coming to Australia, he has not repaid any money to the bank or the private money lenders.
This evidence is not consistent with the applicant’s Statement of Claims. In his Statement of Claims, he claimed that he borrowed 100,000 ringgit from a “usury” at a monthly interest rate of 20%.
During the hearing, the applicant’s [Sister A] gave evidence. When asked whether the applicant told her who he borrowed money from, she responded that she did not know the person. It was too late to pay the guy. The debt kept accumulating. When asked whether he borrowed money from the bank, she responded just a credit card. When asked the credit limit on the credit card, she responded that he had four or five (credit) cards. The limits were maybe 20,000 to 30,000 ringgit. The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that this was not consistent with his evidence and raised issues in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
The applicant responded that he borrowed money from the bank behind his sisters’ back. He did not want them to know. His [sister] was only aware of three or four credit cards when in fact he had eight credit cards. He normally used his credit cards to make the repayments. Two of his cards had a credit limit of 50,000 ringgit. When the Tribunal reminded him of his earlier evidence that he borrowed money from private lenders to repay the bank, he responded that he used the credit cards to repay the bank. He could only borrow cash from money lenders. If he borrowed 10,000 ringgit, they kept 1,000 ringgit.
The applicant stated that the illegal (unlicensed) money lenders can swipe the cards on his behalf. The Tribunal asked him whether the illegal (unlicensed) money lenders were different to the other money lenders he had referred to and he responded yes. When the Tribunal pointed out that he was making these claims for the first time, he responded that credit cards can only be used to make purchases or withdraw cash up to 10,000 ringgit. They would illegally claim they were selling something and when money was withdrawn from the credit card they would take 2,000 or 3,000 ringgit.
The Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that his evidence keeps changing. He responded that if a borrower wanted 10,000 ringgit in three days, they kept 1,000 ringgit. If the borrower wanted the money immediately, they kept more. His response does not address the issue raised with him. He offered no explanation for why he failed to mention these claims in his Statement of Claims or why he borrowed money from an unlicensed money lender rather than a licensed money lender or the inconsistencies in his evidence.
The Tribunal considers that it is feasible that the applicant did not mention that he borrowed money from the bank and had eight credit cards in his Statement of Claims because his sisters were financially supporting him in Malaysia, [one] sister helped him to prepare his application for a Protection visa and he did not want her to know the extent of his debts in Malaysia. However, this does not explain why he gave evidence to the Tribunal that his application for a Protection visa was accurate and complete. These issues raise concerns in relation to his reliability as a witness and the veracity of his claims.
Second, in his Statement of Claims, the applicant claimed that in May 2015 Police officers went to his [business 1] and then asked for 1,000 ringgit. When he refused they became upset. They accused him of running the business illegally and “some guys” took [equipment] from his [business 1]. He went to [Authority 1] to complain about the Police officers. On the following day, he received a threatening telephone call from the Police. They said he would come to no good for complaining about them. He claimed that on [a day in] (2015), the Police went to his [business 1] and said someone had complained about pornographic deals at his [business 1]. He became angry and criticised them for abusing their power. They called him a “Chinese pig”, fined him [amount] ringgit and ordered him to close his business.
During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that when he was operating the [business 1] the Police kept going there for debt collection and asking for protection money for several years. His business was not doing well and was in debt. The Police kept coming for money and he did not have enough money to give them. It was not just the Police but also staff from the government who would show their cards and ask for coffee money. Staff from the health department and the fire department would say this is no good or that is no good. They just wanted money from him.
The applicant’s sister, [Sister A], gave evidence that in 2012 or 2013 a Police officer told the applicant that his daughter or son’s school bag was old and he had to buy a new bag. He showed the applicant his old phone and said everyone is using a smart telephone and he wanted to change to a new telephone. They assumed the Police officer wanted the applicant to get him a new telephone. He gave this Police officer [amount] ringgit a month to keep out of trouble. In 2013, one of the authorities told the applicant his [business equipment] was not correct and they needed to take him to Court. He said the [business equipment] is legal and permitted. When he questioned why he had to remove it, the person laughed and asked for [amount] ringgit to stop his people from taking the [business equipment]. He did not have the money so he offered them a drink instead. A few days later they came back, took the [business equipment] and told him to go to Court to get it back. He went to Court and got the [business equipment] back but it was damaged and he could not use it.
[Sister A] gave evidence that, at the end of 2013, the fire department required the applicant to change the fire extinguishers in the shop. They had not “expired”. Every month it was a different department. She and her sister sent him money to pay off his debts but no matter how much they sent it was not a help. He sold his house and gave the money to one of the money lenders. His debts were still not paid. These people wanted to take his business and house. He did not sell his last business. He gave it to one of the money lenders.
The Tribunal asked [Sister A] whether all businesses in Malaysia had these kinds of problems. She responded that not all businesses do. Large businesses have to deal with high level corrupt officers. Small businesses have to deal with low level corrupt officers. Officers from the health department and the fire department try and get a finger in the pie.
During the hearing, the applicant’s evidence in relation to his business and his employment was inconsistent. He stated that he started the [business 1] when he was [age] years old (2010) and had the business for a little more than 10 years (2020). This is not consistent with his claims in his Statement of Claims that he started the [business 1] in 2012 and was ordered by the Police to close down the business on [a day in] (2015). He also gave evidence that he stopped working in Malaysia after the [business 1] closed down and he did not work in Malaysia for around a year after that. However, his evidence is that he came to Australia in October 2015 which is five months after the business closed down. He also subsequently gave inconsistent evidence that he worked after he closed down the business.

The applicant’s evidence indicates that his most substantive loan was from the bank and that he also had eight credit cards on which he owed money. In addition, he had outstanding loans in relation to money borrowed from unlicenced money lenders. He was getting money from his sister, [Sister A], and other family members to pay his debts and his living expenses. However, he was not honest with [Sister A] in relation to his financial circumstances and was selective in what he told her. She was not aware that he had borrowed 500,000 ringgit from the bank. She believed that he had four or five credit cards with a credit limit of 20,000 to 30,000 ringgit when in fact he had eight credit cards and two of his credit card had a credit limit of 50,000 ringgit.
These circumstances raise concerns in relation to what the applicant told [Sister A] and other family members about his business problems in order to obtain their financial assistance. He has not provided the Department or the Tribunal with any documentary evidence to support his claims about his business. The Tribunal would expect him to have, or have access to, documentary evidence in relation to bank loans, credit cards, Court proceedings to recover his [business equipment] as claimed and bankruptcy proceedings, if any. These factors impact on what weight the Tribunal can place on the evidence given by [Sister A] particularly as she is his sister and not an independent witness.
The above issues raise further concerns in relation to the applicant’s reliability as a witness and the credibility of his claims.
Third, in his Statement of Claims, the applicant claimed that after his [business 1] was shut down he lost his source of income and was unable to pay the “usury”. He started receiving threatening telephone calls from a debt collector. Debt collectors often stopped him on the road and beat him. They went to his home and splashed paint on his doors and took valuable things from his home. He called the Police but they did not care about him. The debt collectors threatened and intimidated his wife and said she would have to drink with the guests to redeem his debt. His wife could not stand such threats and ran away from home. The debt collectors kept coming to him for money. He went into hiding “here and there”.
During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he rented accommodation and continued to live in Kedah by himself for about a year before he left Malaysia in October 2015 to travel to Australia. Prior to that, he lived in Kedah with his mother. When asked why he rented accommodation in Kedah, he responded that he was forced to do so because he had sold everything and did not have anywhere else. This timeline is not consistent with his claims in his Statement of Claims in which he claimed that after his business closed down on [a day in] 2015 and he lost his source of income he started having problems with debt collectors. His evidence to the Tribunal is that he then had to sell his house to repay his debts. If his house was sold after [a day in] 2015 and he left Malaysia in October 2015, he could not have been living in rental accommodation for about a year prior to coming to Australia.
The applicant’s evidence that he lived in rental accommodation in Kedah for about a year prior to coming to Australia in October 2015 is also not consistent with his claim in his Statement of Claims that he went into hiding “here and there” after [a day in] 2015. Even if he lived in rental accommodation for less than a year, the fact that he lived at the same address from the time he sold his house until he left Malaysia to travel to Australia and was engaged in employment, indicates that he was not in hiding “here and there”. The fact that he rented accommodation in the same State he lived in and was engaged in employment also tends to indicate that he was not making it difficult for debt collectors to find him.
During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that his wife ran away more than 10 years ago (prior to 2014). When asked why she ran away, he responded because he did not have anything and had lost everything. This is not consistent with his claims that his business was closed in May 2015, his house was sold after that date and he then lost everything. This indicates that his wife left him prior to him losing everything. Further, if his wife left him prior to 2014, this would have been prior to him having problems with debt collectors and not consistent with his claims that she left him because debt collectors threatened and intimidated her, she could not stand such threats and ran away.
During the hearing, the applicant’s sister [Sister A] gave evidence that, in mid-2014, the applicant sent her a photograph which showed red paint on his house. Someone had thrown the paint on his house. The applicant did not provide this photograph to the Department or the Tribunal in support of this claim.
These issues raise further concerns in relation to the applicant’s reliability as a witness and the veracity of his claims.
Fourth, the applicant made new claims during the hearing that he was unable to work in Malaysia (after his [business 1] was shut down) because the money lenders intimidated and threatened him that they would beat him if he did not re-pay the money. If he worked at a shop, they would go to the shop and the shop owner would be afraid to hire him. The Tribunal pointed out that it was in the interest of the money lenders for him to work so that he could earn money and repay his debts. He responded that when he was in Kedah he earned a bit more than 1,000 ringgit a month. After he paid for rent and food, there was not much left. He was not able to meet their demands so they would not let him off. The Tribunal asked him when the money lenders intimidated and threatened him. He responded that it happened in the year after he closed the [business 1].
This evidence in relation to the applicant’s work in Kedah contradicted his claim that he was unable to work in Malaysia after his [business 1] was shut down because of the conduct of the money lenders/debt collectors toward him. It is also inconsistent with his evidence in his application for a Protection visa where he stated that he last worked in Malaysia in May 2015. These issues raise further concerns in relation to the applicant’s reliability as a witness and the veracity of his claims.
Fifth, the applicant made new claims during the hearing. The Tribunal raised as issues with him the fact that if he had started a business and it was not successful or if he borrowed money and could not afford to repay his debts that did not make him a refugee. He responded that he did want to repay the money. He was put under pressure and beaten up. The debt collectors went to his workplace and there was no way for him. The debt collectors told him that they were being forced by their superiors. They had to collect 200 ringgit one day and 300 ringgit the next day. He had no way of repaying the debt. They did not give him a way to survive. After accommodation and food, he would pay whatever was left but he was only earning 1,000 ringgit a month and they asked him to pay 2,000 to 3,000 ringgit a month. It was impossible.
The Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that he had made no attempt to repay his debts since coming to Australia and expressed its doubts that he wants to repay the money. He responded that the money he earned in Australia was used to repay his sisters and support their mother. He no longer has contact with (the debt collectors/money lenders). It is impossible for him to pay them back. If he contacts them again, they will make excessive demands. They will not be polite or nice to him.
The applicant gave evidence that the debt collectors/money lenders threatened to kill him if they did not get their money back. They cannot come to Australia to get their money. Every day he stays here they intimidate or threaten his [brother]. When the Tribunal pointed out that these were new claims he had not made previously, he responded that they are currently threatening him and not his [brother]. They are using him as a threat saying they will go after his [brother] but they have not. They just threatened that if he cannot repay his debt it would be pointless for him to stay alive in this world. When the Tribunal pointed out that he lived in Malaysia for a year after he stopped his [business 1]. He responded that he was beaten many times and tried to hide here and there like a rat crossing a street.
The Tribunal reminded the applicant of his earlier evidence that he lived in rental accommodation in Kedah for about a year prior to coming to Australia (and not “here and there” as claimed). He responded that if there were no people, he went outside. If there were people, he stayed in the house. At night, he did not put the lights on. There are a lot of things he does not know how to explain. When it came to threatening his life, they did it verbally. Whenever they caught him, they beat him up. He did not know whether they would kill him but he did not want to take the risk. The Tribunal finds this explanation to be implausible in light of his evidence that he was living and working in Kedah after his business closed down and has not claimed that any attempt was made on his life.
These issues raise further concerns in relation to the applicant’s reliability as a witness and the veracity of his claims.
Sixth, the applicant’s conduct was not consistent with his claims and raises issues about the credibility of his claims. The records of the Department indicate that he was granted a Visitor visa on 18 May 2015 . However, he did not arrive in Australia until [October] 2015. His delay in leaving Malaysia is not consistent with his claims that his life was threatened and he was in hiding “here and there”. The Tribunal put this information to him, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act.
The applicant responded that, before he came to Australia, he did not know about Protection visas or that he could apply for a Protection visa. When he could not survive any longer, he knew that his sister was in Australia and he found a way to survive. He met one or two friends who mentioned to him that Australia has laws to protect human rights and also has “refugee protection visas”. The Tribunal noted that he had two sisters who had lived a Australia for a long time; one was an Australian citizen and the other was a permanent resident in Australia. Even if he did not know, his sisters would have known where to get legal advice. He responded that [one] sister did not know about it either. He could only come here on a Student visa. When the Tribunal pointed out that he came here on a Visitor visa, he responded that he applied for a Student visa after he got here. His [sister] was not aware and no one told her. He was not aware of Protection visas. After he came here, he found out when chatting to his friends.
The Tribunal does not find the applicant’s explanation to be persuasive. [One] sister is a business owner and [another] sister, according to him, came here on a Student visa and then used an immigration pathway to obtain permanent residence. She would therefore have had personal knowledge of Australia’s immigration system and where to obtain immigration advice and assistance. Further, the Department’s Decision Record dated 20 December 2017, which he has filed with the Tribunal, indicates that he had previously travelled to Australia [in] July 2007 as the holder of a Visitor visa, then applied for a Student visa onshore and was granted a [Student] visa on 31 August 2007. He therefore had prior knowledge of Australia’s immigration system.
In any event, this explanation does not address the issue raised with the applicant or alleviate the Tribunal’s concerns. Further, if he was granted a Visitor visa on 18 May 2015, he would have applied for the Visitor visa prior to that date. This was before he claimed that he was ordered to close down his business on [a day in] 2015 which subsequently led to the sale of his house. This is also not consistent with his evidence that he decided to come to Australia after he became bankrupt. This raises further issues about the credibility of his claims. His conduct is not consistent with his claims and raises further concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Seventh, the Department’s Decision Record dated 20 December 2017, which the applicant has filed with the Tribunal, indicates that he returned to Australia [in] October 2015 as the holder of a Visitor visa. He was granted a Student visa on 4 May 2016. A Student visa is a temporary visa that required him to return to Malaysia before his Student visa expired. His Student visa was cancelled on 23 August 2017. He applied for a Protection visa on 4 August 2017.
The Tribunal discussed his immigration history with the applicant and noted that it may come to the conclusion that, when he found out that his Student visa was going to be cancelled, he applied for a Protection visa to extend his stay in Australia and not because he was in need of protection. He responded that he was not cut out for studying. Student visas cost money. He borrowed the money from his [sister] and had to repay it. While on a Student visa, a friend told him that, based on his circumstances, he could apply (for a Protection visa) so he wanted to give it a try. He hopes that he will be given a way to survive.
The applicant’s response does not address the issue raised with him and it exacerbates the Tribunal’s concerns. His evidence is that he is not cut out for studying. He had previously been granted a Student visa in Australia and had not used that Student visa as a pathway to permanent residence as one of his sisters did. In these, circumstances the Tribunal would expect him to have sought the assistance of one of his sisters in Australia to obtain immigration advice to explore his visa options if he genuinely feared returning to Malaysia. His delay in applying for a Protection visa raises further concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Eighth, during the hearing, the Tribunal discussed relocation with the applicant. When asked whether he had considered relocating somewhere else in Malaysia other than Kedah, he responded that their people are everywhere. He has not repaid the bank either. He has been “blacklisted”. When asked what he meant by that, he responded that, because he owes money to a bank, he will not be able to open a bank account. If he gets paid in cash, he will not be able to get a high salary or pay his tax.
The Tribunal does not accept that if the applicant owes money to one bank he cannot open a bank account at another bank particularly if it is a savings account for the purpose of depositing his salary. If he has been declared a bankrupt, and it is not clear if he has, this does not prevent him from opening a bank account.[1] Further, if he was declared bankrupt in 2015, he could apply to be discharged as a bankrupt if it has not occurred already and he would no longer have a debt to the bank or licensed money lenders.
[1] Can a bankrupt open a bank account or continue using his existing bank account, Malaysian Department of Insolvency. (13. Can a bankrupt open a bank account or continue using his existing account? (mdi.gov.my))
The Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that there was nothing to stop him getting a job in Malaysia. He responded that that would be out of the question because of his age ([age] years). There are many young people in Malaysia. He cannot go to [Country 1] for work (as he did previously) because they will not hire someone his age. This is not consistent with his own evidence that his [brothers] in Malaysia are working as a [two occupations] respectively. It is also not consistent with the law in Malaysia which provides that the minimum retirement age in the private sector is 60 years (Minimum Retirement Age Act 2012)[2]
[2] What is the new retirement age in Malaysia?, LinkedIn, 2 June 2024. (What is the New Retirement Age in Malaysia? (linkedin.com)
The Tribunal asked the applicant what he thought would happen if he returned to Malaysia. He responded that he does not have a house or anything else. He will not be able to survive. If he returns and they learn about it, it will be worse for him. The Tribunal does not find this to be persuasive. He has [brothers] and other family members in Malaysia to assist him. He did not have a house and lived in rental accommodation prior to coming to Australia. He received financial assistance from his two sisters in Australia. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that they will not financially support him on his return to Malaysia until he is able to obtain employment and pay for his accommodation and living expenses.
The applicant is also able to get assistance from government and non-government debt support agencies including assistance to negotiate with unlicensed money lenders to settle debts.[3] The Malaysian Chinese Association’s (MCA) Public Services and Complaints Department provides a similar service to renegotiate the terms of loans with unlicensed money lenders on behalf of borrowers.[4]
[3] ‘KL Consumer Safety Association - No need to fear the loan sharks’, Bernama (Malaysian National News Agency), 17 February 2015, DFAT, Country Information Report - Malaysia, 29 June 2021, p.41

In view of the above, the Tribunal does not find the applicant’s evidence in relation to his return to Malaysia to be persuasive.

Ninth, in his Statement of Claims, the applicant claimed that ethnic Chinese in Malaysia are marginalised and treated unfairly in relation to education, economics and politics. There are many restrictions on bank loans for ethnic Chinese in Malaysia. It is difficult for them to obtain employment in government and large enterprises. The anti-Chinese phenomenon in Malaysian society is serious. His personal safety was not guaranteed in Malaysia. In October 2015, he came to Australia. He urges the Australian government to provide him with protection.

These claims are made in the most generic terms. He does not specifically claimed that he suffered persecution for reason of his Chinese ethnicity and the only specific claim he has made is that his personal safety was not guaranteed in Malaysia. In his evidence to the Tribunal, he stated that he completed Middle School in Malaysia and studied up to the age of [age] years. His evidence that he was not “cut out to study” may explain why he did not complete High School or undertake tertiary studies. His evidence is that he was employed in Malaysia in various jobs in the [named] industry, as a salesman, in [two further industries] other than the two periods when he was working in [Country 1]. He was therefore able to obtain an education, within his capacity, and employment commensurate with his educational and skill levels.

The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal indicates that he was able to access bank services and to obtain a loan of 500,000 ringgit from the bank to enable him to start his [business 1]. He was also able to obtain eight credit cards from a bank or banks. He has not claimed that his treatment by certain Police officers and government officers who went to his [business 1] and expected free services or asked for money was because of his Chinese ethnicity rather than because he was a business owner although this may be an implied claim. He has not claimed that his treatment by money lenders or debt collectors was because of his Chinese ethnicity rather than because he was not repaying his loans.

The Tribunal discussed with him the following country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT):

The Malaysian Department of Statistics estimated there were 6.7 million Chinese Malaysians in Malaysia in 2020, making up around 20 per cent of the population. Chinese Malaysians are one of the largest overseas Chinese communities in the world, and are Malaysia’s second largest ethnic group. Chinese Malaysians comprise a high proportion of the professional and educated class, are prominent in business and commerce, and tend to be wealthier than other ethnic groups in Malaysia. Chinese Malaysians are concentrated in the west coast states of peninsular Malaysia, living in large urban centres, including within Kuala Lumpur and Penang, and the populous states of Johor, Perak and Selangor, where they comprise approximately 30 per cent of the population.
There are no laws or constitutional provisions that directly discriminate against Chinese Malaysians (though, by implication, as the second largest ethnic group, they are the principal group affected by the constitutional preference for Bumiputera).
DFAT assesses Chinese Malaysians experience low levels of official discrimination when attempting to gain entry into the state tertiary system, or the civil service, including when seeking promotion opportunities, or when opening or operating a Chinese Malaysian owned business in the private sector.[5]
[5] DFAT Country Information Report on Malaysia, 29 June 2021.

The applicant responded that he does not agree with the part about education. When it comes to education, the Chinese pay for their own education. The government builds houses and schools for Muslims. What is unfair is that there are many things the Chinese cannot do. When it comes to land, more of the land belongs to Muslims. The Chinese can only buy land from Chinese. That is where it is unfair. Chinese and Indians are not treated equally.

DFAT reports that “Chinese Malaysians are eligible to access national primary to high school education, but generally choose to attend one of the nearly 1,300 national-type Chinese primary schools that teach in Mandarin (along with Bahasa Malaysia). This is reported usually due to concerns about the quality of education elsewhere and perceptions that the curriculum has a strong focus on Islam.”[6] This country information about access to education in schools for Chinese Malaysians does not support the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal prefers this evidence to the applicant’s evidence.
[6] Ibid.
In considering his response in relation to land ownership and the purchase of land, the Tribunal notes that he was able to purchase a home which he subsequently sold to pay his debts. He was able to rent accommodation in Kedah. He has not claimed that he wished to purchase land and was prevented from doing so in the past or that he may wish to purchase land in the future.
Since the hearing, DFAT released an updated version of its Country Information Report dated 24 June 2024. The information referred to above is not relevantly different to the information in the 24 June 2024 Report.
Other considerations
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant country information on Malaysia and steps taken by the Malaysian authorities, in particular the Royal Malaysian Police (RMP), to address the issue of illegal money lending around the time he was dealing with money lenders/debt collectors in Malaysia. The Tribunal also discussed with him country information from DFAT in relation to State protection, the effectiveness of the RMP and corruption within the RMP.[7] [8]
[7] DFAT Country Information Report on Malaysia, 19 July 2016.
[8] Malaysia 2016 Crime and Safety Report, US Department of State 2016, 29 February 2016. (CIS38A80121034)
The applicant responded that the people that are caught are mostly Indian and Chinese. The biggest group are Muslims. Muslims are also the largest number of Police officers. There are connections between the Muslim officers and the Muslim money lenders. The Police officers and government officers from the Department of Health and the fire fighters who asked him for money were Muslims. There were no Indians that asked him for money. There are Indian loan sharks but the biggest group are Muslims who are under the protection of the Police. They know that even if they break the law by beating borrowers they will be released.
DFAT reports the following:
State protection is available to victims of loan sharks but it is often ineffective. Being the victim of a loan shark is often perceived as a moral failing and some Police believe debtors have a religious obligation to pay their debts and consequently will not act to protect them. Formel credit agencies can consolidate loan shark debts and provide payment plans, providing some options for victims.
DFAT assesses that victims of loan sharks and their family members face a moderate risk of discrimination due to familial and societal shame. DFAT assess that victims of loan sharks also face a moderate risk of harassment and a low risk of violence from loan sharks and/or gangsters. State protection is available but not always effective.[9]
[9] DFAT Country Information Report on Malaysia, 24 June 2024.
The Tribunal has had regard to the Tribunal’s Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility when assessing the applicant’s credibility. The Tribunal has also had regard to the DFAT Country Information Reports on Malaysia, other opensource country information and the Department’s Policy Guidelines to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Findings
Having considered all of the applicant’s claims and all the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a reliable or credible witness. The Tribunal finds that he embellished some of his claims and fabricated others.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was born on [date] at Kedah in Malaysia. The Tribunal accepts that his father has passed away and that his mother is currently in Australia as the holder of a Visitor visa. The Tribunal accepts that he has [brothers] who live in Malaysia and two sisters who live in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that [one] sister is an Australian citizen and has lived in Australia for about of 30 years. The Tribunal accepts that his [other] sister came to Australia as the holder of a Student visa, has obtained permanent residence in Australia and has lived here for over 10 years. The Tribunal accepts that he was married and separated from his wife more than 10 years ago. The Tribunal does not accept that she left him because debt collectors threatened and intimidated her or because he lost everything.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant set up a [business 1] in 2012. The Tribunal accepts that he borrowed 500,000 ringgit from a bank to set up the business. The Tribunal accepts that he used his house as security for the loan. The Tribunal accepts that the business did not do well and he was making insufficient income to re-pay his bank loan. The Tribunal accepts that he initially used his credit cards to re-pay his bank loan. The Tribunal accepts that when he was no longer able to make repayments on his credit cards, he borrowed money from an unlicensed money lender and was then unable to re-pay the money lender.
The Tribunal does not accept that government officers went to the applicant’s business premises almost every day to play and did not pay any money. The Tribunal accepts that he had problems with the fire department and the Department of Health. The Tribunal does not accept that this caused the failure of his business.
The Tribunal does not accept that, in May 2015, Police officers went to the applicant’s business premises, [asked] for [amount] ringgit and, when he refused, accused him of running the business illegally and took his [business] equipment. The Tribunal does not accept that he made a complaint against the Police officers and received a threatening telephone call from the Police on the following day. The Tribunal does not accept that on [a day in] 2015 the Police informed him that someone had complained about pornographic deals in his business, called him a “Chinese pig”, fined him 5,000 ringgit and ordered him to shut down his business.
The Tribunal accepts that when the applicant was unable to re-pay the unlicensed money lender he was harassed and threatened by debt collectors. The Tribunal accepts that they threw red paint on his house and took valuables from his home. The Tribunal does not accept that he was beaten by them. The Tribunal does not accept that he reported the debt collectors to the Police. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept his claims that flow from this. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal concludes that he decided to give his business to the unlicensed money lender in payment of his outstanding debt.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant sold his house and used the net proceeds of sale to pay the bank. The Tribunal accepts that, after he sold his house, he rented accommodation and continued living in the State of Kedah. The Tribunal accepts that after he transferred his business to the unlicensed money lender he obtained alternate employment and also received financial assistance from his two sisters who live in Australia. The Tribunal does not accept that he went into hiding “here and there”.
The applicant’s evidence relation to whether bankruptcy proceedings were commenced by him or the bank and whether he was declared bankrupt is vague and contradictory. The Tribunal is unable to make any findings in relation to this issue. The Tribunal accepts that he has had no contact with the unlicensed money lender or the debt collectors since coming to Australia (if not for a considerable period of time prior to coming to Australia). In the event that he was not declared bankrupt and still owes money to the bank and/or a money lender or money lenders, he is able to seek assistance from government and non-government organisations in Malaysia to re-negotiate re-payment of outstanding debts and work out a payment plan.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant suffered persecution in China because of his Chinese ethnicity. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or a real risk of serious harm or significant harm to him because of his Chinese ethnicity if he returns to Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
In view of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm to the applicant, for any of the reasons claimed, if he returns to Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the refugee criterion?
Having considered all the claims and the evidence and in view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of his membership of a particular social group, race or any other reason set out in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act, that there is a real chance that he would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Malaysia. Therefore, he does not meet the definition of refugee as set out in s.5H of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the complementary protection criterion?
As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered whether he may nevertheless meet the criterion for the grant of a Protection visa pursuant to the complementary protection criterion.
Having considered all the claims and the evidence and in view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and who holds a Protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
L. Symons
Member
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2024] AATA 4062

13 September 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice