1809032 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of a Malaysian national seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have borrowed money from a loan shark for his business, which subsequently suffered damage, leading to threats of harm from the lender. The applicant also alleged that the police had not provided assistance. The delegate had previously refused the protection visa application, finding that the applicant's claimed fear of harm did not meet the refugee criteria and that there was no real risk of significant harm for complementary protection purposes, as Malaysian authorities were considered reasonably effective in combating illegal moneylending. The applicant sought review of this decision.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether he was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility, the veracity of his claims regarding the loan, the threats received, and the effectiveness of Malaysian state protection and other available remedies.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused heavily on the applicant's inconsistent and implausible evidence regarding the loan. The applicant provided conflicting details about the loan amount, interest rates, repayment history, and the identity of the lender. His explanation for repaying nearly 1,000,000 RM in interest on a 70,000 RM loan, without any written agreement or record of payments, was found to be highly questionable. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the police reports filed by the applicant were inconsistent with his claims and did not mention the loan sharks or the alleged threats. The Tribunal also considered country information indicating that Malaysian authorities are generally willing and able to combat illegal moneylending and that various government and non-government agencies offer assistance to borrowers. Based on the lack of credible evidence supporting the applicant's claims of threats and harm, and the availability of state protection in Malaysia, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and did not face a real risk of significant harm.

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