2013546 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to be a citizen of Malaysia and asserted fears of persecution, including threats from loan sharks, criminal gangs, and a physical assault, potentially linked to a mixed-religious relationship. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims. While acknowledging the principle of giving the benefit of the doubt to generally credible applicants who cannot substantiate all claims, the Tribunal found significant concerns with the applicant's evidence due to internal inconsistencies and vagueness. The applicant's stated purpose for completing the protection visa application form, that it was primarily for a work visa during the COVID-19 pandemic, further contributed to these credibility issues. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant provided no evidence suggesting he had a right to reside in any country other than Malaysia, leading to the conclusion that Malaysia was the relevant country of reference and receiving country.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. This outcome was based on the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings regarding the applicant's claims and the lack of evidence to satisfy the statutory requirements for protection under the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy any of the criteria for a protection visa.