1701647 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, sought a protection visa, claiming he feared harm from a criminal gang in Malaysia. He alleged he had been threatened and forced to pay monthly protection money to a group he joined for backup, but later refused to increase his payments and was told he was in debt. The applicant stated he had not yet experienced any harm in Malaysia. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group, and alternatively, whether he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm if removed to Malaysia.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the legislative definitions of "well-founded fear of persecution" and "significant harm," including the requirements for membership in a particular social group and the availability of effective protection measures. The applicant's evidence was found to be inconsistent, particularly his initial statement that everything in his application was true, which he later qualified with "maybe," explaining he did not fully understand what his migration agent had written. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not experienced any harm in Malaysia and that his claims of threats were not substantiated by evidence of specific actions taken against him by the gang. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant could reasonably relocate within Malaysia to avoid any potential risk, and whether effective protection measures were available to him.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). There was no suggestion that the applicant satisfied section 36(2) by being a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.