2007568 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1121

2007568 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1121 (6 JANUARY 2025)

DECISION AND

REASONS FOR DECISION

Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2007568
Tribunal:General Member F Brady
Date:6 January 2025

Place:Adelaide
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Malaysia – Religion – Islam – harassment and serious threat from the loan shark – no longer pursuing the loan shark claims – death of her sons – mental health issues – no medical evidence regarding the applicant’s mental state and suicide risk – not satisfied the applicants have a well-founded fear – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (the delegate) on 20 April 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a national of Malaysia, applied for the protection visa on 19 December 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for being assessed as a refugee and was also not entitled to complementary protection.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. The decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 December 2024 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant’s sister, [name], attended and gave evidence before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Malay and English languages.

BACKGROUND

The applicant’s application for a protection visa included the following background information:
a.The applicant was born in [Town 1] in the Perak Province in Malaysia on [date]. As such she is currently [age] years old.
b.The applicant held a passport issued by the Malaysian government on [date] 2019. It was set to expire on [date] 2024.
c.The applicant recorded her religion as Islam.
d.The applicant was married on [date] December 1992.
e.The applicant left Malaysia on [date] October 2019 via a commercial flight and arrived in Australia (Melbourne) on the same day. She arrived in Australia on a visitor visa.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading 2007568 (Refugee)

Details

AGLC: 2007568 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1121
Case: [2025] ARTA 1121
Decision Date: 6 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of 2007568 (Refugee), the applicant, a Malaysian national, sought a protection visa in Australia on the basis of a fear of persecution due to her Islamic faith, as well as harassment and threats from a loan shark. The case was heard by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and subsequently appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The central legal issues revolved around whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Malaysia and whether the applicant's claims were substantiated by credible evidence.

The AAT examined the applicant's assertions regarding religious persecution and the threats from the loan shark. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had ceased pursuing her claims against the loan shark and had not provided any medical evidence to substantiate her claims of mental health issues or suicide risk. The AAT found that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa, as they were not convinced that the applicant had a genuine fear of persecution based on the evidence presented. The AAT also considered the broader context of the applicant's claims and found that they did not meet the threshold for a well-founded fear of persecution.

Consequently, the AAT affirmed the decision of the RRT to refuse the applicant's claim for a protection visa. The AAT concluded that the evidence did not support the applicant's claims of a serious threat from the loan shark, nor did it establish a credible fear of religious persecution. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence and the absence of a demonstrated well-founded fear of persecution.

The AAT's decision to affirm the RRT's refusal of the applicant's protection visa claim was upheld, and the applicant's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence to support the applicant's claims of persecution or serious threats, and therefore, the application for a protection visa was denied.

Orders