1602488 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa application of an individual who claimed to have been subjected to threats and violence in Malaysia following a business dispute. The applicant alleged that after a client refused to pay for renovation work, he was threatened with a knife, falsely accused of theft, arrested, and detained. He further claimed that his business license was revoked, leading to an inability to repay a usurious loan, and that loan sharks subsequently subjected him to threats, violence, and property damage.

The Tribunal was required to determine 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 a receiving country. The Tribunal also had regard to departmental policy guidelines and country information.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Act. It then considered the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa), which requires a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The Tribunal examined the applicant's allegations of threats, violence, and the actions of loan sharks and authorities. However, the provided text does not detail the Tribunal's specific findings on whether these circumstances constituted significant harm or if effective protection was available.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act, and there was no suggestion that he satisfied it on the basis of being a family member of someone who did.