1912030 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Cody J) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, a Malaysian national, claimed to fear persecution in Malaysia due to his involvement as a guarantor for a loan taken by his ex-brother-in-law from money lenders. He alleged he was threatened and assaulted by debt collectors when the loan was not repaid. The applicant also presented claims regarding a separate loan he took for his ex-wife to purchase a car, which also led to threats and the vandalism of the vehicle.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's claims against the country information for Malaysia and determine if he had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return. A key aspect of the assessment involved the applicant's credibility, given the significant inconsistencies between his initial application and his evidence presented at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had failed to satisfy the onus placed upon him under section 5AAA of the Act to specify all particulars of his claim and provide sufficient evidence. The Tribunal noted numerous inconsistencies in the applicant's account, including the identity of the borrower, the amount of the loans, the terms of repayment, and the reasons for his divorce. These inconsistencies undermined the applicant's credibility. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered country information indicating that Malaysian authorities are willing and reasonably effective in combating illegal money lending and can provide protection. The Tribunal concluded that effective protection measures were available to the applicant in Malaysia, and therefore, he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa.