1903623 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a Malaysian national. The applicant claimed she had fled Malaysia due to financial problems, domestic violence from her husband who owed money to loan sharks, and threats from those loan sharks. She also asserted that the authorities in Malaysia would not be able to assist her due to the involvement of her husband's family and that she lacked the financial means to relocate within Malaysia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under either the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), including sections 5H, 5J, 36(2)(a), and 36(2)(aa), as well as Ministerial Direction No. 84 and associated guidelines. The central legal issues were whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee or whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal to Malaysia, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. This involved assessing the credibility of her claims regarding loan sharks and domestic violence, and the availability of effective protection measures in Malaysia.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a citizen of Malaysia, establishing it as the country of reference and receiving country for the assessment of her claims. While acknowledging the existence of illegal moneylending in Malaysia and the difficulties women can face in obtaining state protection, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had established a real chance of suffering harm from loan sharks, nor had she provided sufficient supporting documentation for her domestic violence claims. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant could return to Malaysia and live away from her family, and therefore was not satisfied that she faced a real chance of persecution or significant harm upon return. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa application.