2009759 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by two applicants, a mother and daughter, against the refusal of their protection visa applications. The applicants, who were Malaysian citizens of ethnic Malay and Sunni Muslim faith, claimed they had fled Malaysia due to threats from loan sharks, property destruction, and an arson attack. They argued that these events created a real chance of persecution if they were returned to Malaysia.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants faced a real chance of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1)(a) of the Act, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to Malaysia, they faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicants' claims in light of relevant country information and Ministerial Directions.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' claims regarding the loan sharks and the fire incident were not genuine and therefore not well-founded. It concluded that there was no real chance of persecution for these reasons, nor was there a real chance of suffering serious harm. The Tribunal specifically noted that the alleged threats from loan sharks were remote and fanciful, particularly given the passage of time since the alleged events and the applicants' ability to evade them for a period. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that any real chance of persecution related to all areas of Malaysia, as the incidents were confined to a specific region, and the second applicant had recently returned to that region without incident.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicants did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under either section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.