1807750 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of a Malaysian national seeking a protection visa in Australia. The applicant claimed to fear harm from illegal moneylenders in Malaysia due to a business partner's unpaid debt. The delegate of the Department of Home Affairs had previously refused the application, finding that the applicant's claimed fear did not meet the refugee criteria due to a lack of nexus, and that there was no real risk of significant harm for complementary protection. The applicant sought review of this decision.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether Australia had protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility, the veracity of her claims regarding threats and harm from moneylenders, and the availability and effectiveness of protection measures in Malaysia.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's inconsistent and uncorroborated evidence. It noted the lack of documentation for the alleged loan, the business, or any repayments, and the vagueness surrounding the identity of the moneylender and the circumstances of the loan. The Tribunal found the applicant's account of reporting the matter to the police to be uncertain and unsupported by any record. Considering extensive country information, the Tribunal concluded that while illegal moneylending is a problem in Malaysia, the authorities, including the police and various government and non-government agencies, are willing and reasonably effective in combating it and offering protection. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group, nor that there were substantial grounds for believing she faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia, particularly given the available protection measures.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criteria under either section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.