1603997 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Malaysian national, Applicant 1, and his partner, Applicant 2. The dispute centred on whether the applicants faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia, specifically due to debts incurred by a cousin's husband for whom Applicant 1 had acted as a guarantor. The applicants claimed harassment and threats from an unlicensed money lender. The case was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Applicant 1 met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether Applicant 2, as the partner of Applicant 1, met the criteria under section 36(2)(b)(i) by being a member of the same family unit. The Tribunal also had regard to the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which applies if there are substantial grounds for believing that removal would result in a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal noted that both applicants had received assistance with their visa applications from the same acquaintance, leading to identical claims being made. Applicant 1 explained this by stating their situations were similar, involving harassment from a money lender after he agreed to be a guarantor for his absconded cousin. Applicant 2 corroborated this, stating they had similar issues with a money lender and that the acquaintance had attempted to summarise their claims. The Tribunal found that Malaysia was the receiving country for both applicants and that there was no evidence of a safe third country. The Tribunal concluded that Applicant 1 satisfied section 36(2)(a) and that Applicant 2 satisfied section 36(2)(b)(i) as a member of the same family unit as Applicant 1.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with directions that Applicant 1 satisfies section 36(2)(a) and Applicant 2 satisfies section 36(2)(b)(i) on the basis of membership of the same family unit as Applicant 1. This outcome means Applicant 2 would be entitled to a protection visa if the remaining criteria were met, contingent on Applicant 1 being granted a protection visa of the same class.