1822016 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an applicant for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have left Malaysia due to political agitation, unstable economic conditions, and harassment from a loan shark, asserting that Malaysian police would not offer protection. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of relevant policy guidelines and country information assessments.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) (refugee status) or section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection). This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or if there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Malaysia. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to establish their claims.

The Tribunal reasoned that the onus was on the applicant to satisfy all statutory elements of their claim, and a decision-maker was not obliged to construct the case for them. The applicant's claims regarding political agitation and economic instability were found to be brief and lacking in detail, particularly concerning the nature of the "government" and the potential impact of recent political changes in Malaysia. While the applicant alleged harassment by a loan shark and a lack of police protection, these claims were not sufficiently substantiated to demonstrate a real risk of significant harm or persecution. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not suggest they were a family member of someone who met the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.