2004950 (Refugee)

The applicant, a single woman from Malaysia, sought a protection visa in Australia. She claimed to have left Malaysia due to threats from a moneylender to whom her parents owed money, alleging he attempted to misbehave with her and threatened to kill her. She stated she could not seek help within Malaysia as people were afraid to assist her and she could not relocate within the country because the moneylender constantly watched her, believing authorities would not protect her due to his political connections. The delegate refused her visa application, and the applicant sought review by the Tribunal.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, thus engaging Australia's protection obligations. This involved assessing the applicant's claims of a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm, the credibility of her evidence, and the availability of effective protection or internal relocation options within Malaysia.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, noting inconsistencies and her confusion regarding the visa application forms she had submitted. The Tribunal applied the principles of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', and 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', along with country information. It found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for being a refugee due to credibility issues and a lack of evidence supporting her claims of a well-founded fear of persecution. Furthermore, the Tribunal did not find substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, there was a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.