1601729 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa application of an individual who claimed to have left Malaysia due to threats from gangs involved in extortion. The applicant alleged that he was a product seller who refused to pay protection money, leading to trouble for his business, including threats to his residence and family. He also claimed that the Malaysian police were corrupt and colluded with these gangs.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of suffering significant harm if returned to Malaysia. This involved assessing the applicant's claims against the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958*, including the definitions of persecution, significant harm, and the availability of effective protection measures in Malaysia. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had made reasonable inquiries about alternative visa options upon his arrival in Australia.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. While acknowledging the applicant's allegations of gang activity and corruption, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not demonstrate that the applicant would face persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had not provided evidence of his family members suffering harm in his absence and that the gang's visits had become infrequent. The Tribunal also highlighted that the applicant had not explored other visa options during his lawful stay in Australia.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958*. The Tribunal found no suggestion that the applicant qualified as a member of the same family unit as a person who met the protection visa criteria.