1705804 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming he would suffer serious harm if returned to Malaysia due to his debt to a loan shark. He alleged he had been assaulted and threatened with death by the loan shark, and that the police would not assist him due to corruption. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee convention or complementary protection provisions. The decision was made by a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if there was a real chance the applicant would suffer serious harm on return to Malaysia due to his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Alternatively, it had to consider if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims, including his background and the alleged threats from the loan shark. It also took into account relevant policy guidelines and country information assessments. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Act. It then considered the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under s.36(2) of the Act.