Bas21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) which affirmed a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant, a Malaysian citizen, a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm from loan sharks in Malaysia due to an unpaid debt from 2001-2002. He also contended he could not relocate within Malaysia and that the COVID-19 pandemic posed a risk upon his return.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error in its assessment of the applicant's claims. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the Tribunal's findings regarding the applicant's credibility, the genuineness of his fear of harm, and the applicability of protection obligations under the Migration Act were reasonably open to it on the evidence before it.

Lucev J found that the Tribunal had not erred. The Tribunal's reasoning demonstrated a thorough consideration of the applicant's claims, including inconsistencies in his account, lack of corroborating evidence, and the implausibility of his stated reasons for not seeking assistance from authorities or relocating within Malaysia. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's prior travel to Australia on an ETA visa with the intention of working, which cast doubt on his stated fear of harm as the primary reason for leaving Malaysia. Furthermore, the Tribunal appropriately considered country information regarding predatory lending in Malaysia and concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real chance of suffering serious harm upon return, nor had he demonstrated a real risk of harm due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court noted that the Tribunal's findings were open to it on the evidence and that it had applied the correct legal tests.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.