1830786 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming to have fled Malaysia due to threats from drug dealers and alleged complicity of the police. The dispute centred on whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The matter was heard by Dr Greg Weeks.

The court was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee under s 36(2)(a) due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or alternatively, if he qualified for complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) based on a real risk of significant harm if removed to Malaysia. The assessment involved considering the applicant's claims of threats and police corruption against evidence of Malaysia's aggressive drug enforcement policies and severe penalties.

Dr Weeks reasoned that while the applicant had made a police report concerning drug dealers, the evidence did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal considered country information indicating Malaysia's strict drug laws and aggressive enforcement, including severe penalties such as the death sentence for trafficking. Dr Weeks found it unlikely that Malaysian police would cover up for drug dealers given this stringent legal framework. The applicant's explanations for why the drug dealers would seek to harm him after seven years, and why they would not have taken action sooner or used less extreme measures, were not found convincing. Furthermore, the applicant provided no evidence of political connections for the drug dealers or threats from the police. Consequently, Dr Weeks concluded that there was not a real chance the applicant would suffer serious harm if returned to Malaysia, thus not satisfying the refugee criterion. The complementary protection criterion was also not met, as the same reasoning led to the conclusion that there was no real risk of significant harm.

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