1828015 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the application of a Malaysian national for a Protection visa. The applicant claimed to have left Malaysia due to a debt owed to a loan shark, alleging past humiliation and damage to his workplace, and a fear of being located and harmed by the loan shark. He also expressed a general fear of authorities in Malaysia. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was a Malaysian national and that Malaysia was his receiving country.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the criteria for a Protection visa, specifically concerning a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility and substance of the applicant's claims regarding the loan shark and his fear of authorities, and to determine if these claims established a genuine and well-founded fear or a real risk of significant harm as defined by the *Migration Act 1958*.

The Tribunal reasoned that the mere assertion of a fear of persecution or risk of harm is insufficient to establish such a claim. It is incumbent upon the applicant to provide specific details and supporting evidence to substantiate their claims. In this instance, the applicant failed to provide adequate information regarding the nature, amount, and circumstances of his debt, any repayments made, or any contact from the loan shark since his departure. Similarly, his general fear of authorities lacked specific detail. The Tribunal applied the principle that a decision-maker is not obligated to construct an applicant's case for them, and that the onus rests on the applicant to provide sufficient particulars and evidence to establish their claim. Given the lack of detail and supporting evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the 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*.