1511551 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by a Malaysian man of Buddhist and Chinese ethnicity against the Tribunal's decision not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he had been subjected to physical assault, blackmail, and threats by Malaysian Muslims following an accident in 2008. He further alleged that the Malaysian police were unwilling to protect him and that he faced discrimination due to his ethnicity and religion. The applicant contended that if returned to Malaysia, he would be discovered by his persecutors and face death, ongoing blackmail, and arrest, and that Malaysian authorities would not offer him protection.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act), which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Alternatively, the court considered whether the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which requires a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The court was also required to consider the definitions of "significant harm" and the circumstances under which a person would not be taken to face a real risk of such harm, as outlined in sections 36(2A) and (2B) of the Act, and to take into account relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) because it was not satisfied that he had a well-founded fear of persecution. It also found that he did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), as there was no real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on its assessment of the evidence presented by the applicant, including his claims of harm and the alleged lack of protection from Malaysian authorities. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.