1615689 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, but the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant it. The applicant claimed to be in debt to money lenders in Malaysia, unable to repay, and facing threats of harm. The applicant did not report these threats to the police, despite the existence of an effective police force in Malaysia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as defined by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to consider whether effective protection measures were available to the applicant in Malaysia, which would preclude a finding of a well-founded fear of persecution.

The court reasoned that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant's circumstances, including the debt and threats, did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Crucially, the court noted the existence of an effective police force in Malaysia, indicating that effective protection measures were available to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant could not demonstrate a real chance of persecution that was not reasonably capable of being averted by seeking protection from the Malaysian authorities. The court also noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria based on being a member of the same family unit as a person who already held a protection visa.

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