1615462 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a Malaysian national seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Malaysia due to significant financial hardship stemming from his father's business debts, which were incurred using the applicant's identity. He alleged that a loan shark, referred to as Mr. A, was harassing him for repayment, threatening his life, and that the police were unwilling to act due to Mr. A's political connections. The applicant also stated that his family and friends had disassociated from him due to the financial crisis.

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 significant harm if returned to Malaysia. This involved assessing whether the alleged threats and harassment constituted persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if they amounted to significant harm as defined by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion, which requires a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's claims primarily related to economic hardship and the consequences of his father's debts, rather than persecution based on a protected characteristic. While acknowledging the applicant's stated fear and the alleged threats, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution under section 5J of the Act. The Tribunal noted that significant economic hardship, as defined in section 5J(5)(d), must threaten the person's capacity to subsist, and it was not satisfied that this threshold was met. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the applicant had not demonstrated that the alleged threats were linked to any of the grounds for persecution outlined in the legislation, nor that he could not access effective protection in Malaysia. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.