1827874 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to have fled Malaysia due to threats and harm from money lenders. The applicant's initial written claims detailed threats, blackmail, beatings, and attempts on her life and her family's lives by these individuals. However, during a hearing, the applicant provided a different account, stating she borrowed money from a loan shark, was threatened when she made a payment, and subsequently fled Malaysia. The Tribunal noted significant inconsistencies between the written and oral statements.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she was a refugee or faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia, as defined by sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required an assessment of the credibility and consistency of the applicant's claims regarding her fear of persecution or significant harm. The Tribunal was also required to consider relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's inconsistent statements. It found that the discrepancies between her written application and her oral evidence raised concerns about the credibility of her claims. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's explanation for these inconsistencies was that she might have forgotten details. Given these credibility issues and the inconsistencies, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established that she met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.