1924676 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a woman who arrived in Australia in April 2018. The applicant, who identified as Buddhist and of Chinese ethnicity, claimed to have been involved with a Malaysian politician, Mr A, and alleged that she had received money from him to disrupt political events. She further claimed to have been beaten on one occasion and subsequently harassed and threatened, including a death threat if she disclosed information about Mr A. The applicant's initial application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, leading to a merits review application before the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa, specifically whether Australia had protection obligations towards her. This required the Tribunal to consider both the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 and the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa), which applies if there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, there is a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal was also required to assess the applicant's credibility and the consistency of her evidence.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence regarding her fear of returning to Malaysia, which primarily focused on her family's poverty and the potential for her family to be "belittled by relatives" and unable to afford rent or food. The applicant stated that nothing specific would happen to her if she returned. The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be vague and inconsistent, particularly in relation to the alleged political involvement and subsequent threats. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not been practicing Buddhism in Australia and that her claims of harm were not substantiated by credible evidence. The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in the Refugee Law Guidelines and Complementary Protection Guidelines, as well as country information assessments.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.