1816957 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Malaysian national. The applicant claimed to be a victim of loan sharks in Malaysia, alleging he had incurred gambling debts, borrowed money from an illegal moneylender, and had been subjected to threats and physical assault. He also claimed his passport and documents proving the loan had been stolen. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the decision to refuse the visa.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether Australia owed protection obligations to the applicant under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm if removed from Australia to Malaysia, either due to a well-founded fear of persecution or as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence regarding his debt to an illegal moneylender, his gambling addiction, the alleged theft of his passport and loan documents, and a police report identifying him as a victim of crime. However, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies and a lack of substantiation in the applicant's claims, particularly concerning the details of the loan, repayment, and the circumstances of the alleged threats and assault. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant stated he had no further claims to make and that the police report did not specify stolen property or damage. Applying Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Malaysia.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Australia did not have protection obligations towards the applicant and affirmed the decision under review.