1820365 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Malaysian national, sought review of a decision to refuse his protection visa application. The core dispute concerned whether he faced persecution or significant harm upon return to Malaysia, based on claims of political involvement and significant debt to loan sharks. The matter was heard by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues: first, whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, and second, if not, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Malaysia, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had resiled from his initial claims of political persecution, which were deemed not credible based on his inconsistent evidence during the hearing. His claims regarding a substantial debt to loan sharks were also not accepted as credible due to vagueness and implausibility, particularly concerning the address of a property allegedly purchased with the borrowed funds. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under either section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.