2104886 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by an individual who stated they were born in Malaysia. The applicant claimed to have left Malaysia due to being cheated by a job agency and subsequently borrowing money from a loan shark, fearing they would be unable to repay the high interest and that their family would be disturbed. The applicant stated they did not experience harm in Malaysia and had not attempted to relocate within the country.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they were a refugee or entitled to complementary protection. This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's claims against the statutory definition of a refugee, which involves a well-founded fear of persecution for specific reasons, and to determine if there was a real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia. The Tribunal also considered its obligation to make the applicant's case for them, which is limited by law.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's claims were vague, lacked narrative detail, and were unsupported by credible evidence. Citing established case law, the Tribunal emphasised that a mere claim of fear does not establish its genuineness or that it is well-founded, and that the onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient particulars and evidence to substantiate their claim. The applicant failed to provide details regarding the loan, the alleged disturbance to their family, or any corroborating documentation. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory elements required for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.