1704380 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a Malaysian national seeking a protection visa in Australia. The applicant claimed to fear returning to Malaysia due to significant debts owed to money lenders, which he stated were incurred by his absent father. The applicant asserted that he had become solely responsible for these debts and feared retribution, including physical violence and damage to his home, from the money lenders. He also claimed to have attempted to seek assistance from authorities and to have relocated within Malaysia, but was located and allegedly assaulted.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal 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 Tribunal had to determine if the applicant's fear of money lenders constituted persecution for membership of a particular social group and whether effective protection measures were available to him in Malaysia. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the criteria for a protection visa, including the definition of serious harm and the availability of internal relocation or state protection.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of debt and threats from money lenders, the Tribunal found that the applicant could not provide specific details regarding the amounts owed or the precise nature of the threats. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had not demonstrated that he belonged to a "particular social group" as defined by the Act, nor had he shown that the money lenders' actions amounted to persecution for one of the prescribed reasons. Furthermore, the Tribunal implicitly considered the possibility of internal relocation or state protection, though it did not make explicit findings on these points due to the failure to establish the primary claim of persecution.

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