1820281 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa applications of two Malaysian citizens. The first applicant claimed to fear revenge attacks from the family of a person he seriously assaulted in Malaysia, as well as from the authorities. The second applicant claimed to fear a loan shark due to significant debts, alleging threats of violence and prostitution, and stated that authorities could not protect her.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically considering the provisions for complementary protection under section 36(2B) of the Act. This involved assessing whether it would be reasonable for the applicants to relocate within Malaysia to avoid harm, whether they could obtain protection from Malaysian authorities, and whether the risks they faced were general to the population or personal to them. The Tribunal also had regard to relevant guidelines and country information.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the evidence presented by both applicants. For the first applicant, the Tribunal noted his admission during an interview that his protection claims were false and had been prepared by another person, and that he had left Malaysia to find work and move on from a marriage breakdown, seeking to remain in Australia for economic reasons. For the second applicant, while acknowledging her claims of debt and fear of a loan shark, the Tribunal implicitly found that the risk was not sufficiently personal or that protection was not unavailable, as the decision ultimately affirmed the refusal of the visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act.