1704398 (Refugee)

The applicant, a woman from Kelanton, Malaysia, sought review of a decision not to grant her a protection visa. She claimed to fear harm from loan sharks due to significant debt incurred from an investment, asserting that her life would be threatened and she was at risk if returned to Malaysia. The Tribunal considered her claims in light of relevant country information and the provisions of the Migration Act 1958.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Act, and if not, whether she was entitled to complementary protection. This involved determining if she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and crucially, whether effective protection measures were available to her in Malaysia.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. While acknowledging her claims of debt and fear of lenders, the Tribunal found that Malaysia, as her country of nationality and receiving country, offered effective state protection. This conclusion was based on the principle that a real risk of significant harm is negated if an applicant can obtain protection from an authority of the country that would reduce the risk to less than a real chance, as established in cases such as *MIAC v MZYYL* [2012] FCAFC 147. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not provided evidence of threats from her former husband or his family, and her claims related to economic hardship and debt did not, in the circumstances, amount to a well-founded fear of persecution under the Act.

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