1916845 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, a national of Malaysia, claimed that he would be unable to support his family and pay for his daughter's education if returned to Malaysia due to economic hardship and difficulties securing permanent employment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine whether the applicant faced a real chance of suffering serious harm on the basis of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the relevant legislative criteria, including sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which address the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion, respectively. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not provided further evidence or information in support of his claims beyond the initial application, despite multiple opportunities to do so, including emails from the Tribunal and an invitation to a hearing. The applicant attended the hearing but did not present further evidence. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was a Malaysian national of Malay ethnicity and a Muslim. The applicant stated he had completed high school and worked full-time for 13 years prior to his departure for Australia.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. It found that the economic climate in Malaysia affected everyone and that the economic hardship the applicant might suffer did not amount to serious or significant harm. The Tribunal concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Malaysia. The decision under review was therefore affirmed.