1705805 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by Mr [A], who sought to avoid return to Malaysia. Mr [A] claimed that he and his family faced threats from loan sharks due to his inability to repay debts incurred from a previous business. These threats allegedly included kidnapping for human trafficking, mental and emotional abuse, physical abuse, and harm to neighbours. Mr [A] also asserted that he was unemployed, lacked a study certificate necessary for employment in Malaysia, and had been sued for operating a business without a license. He further stated that he had sought assistance from Malaysian authorities and had relocated within Malaysia, but these efforts were unsuccessful in providing protection.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr [A] met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether Australia had protection obligations towards him. This required an assessment of his claims of persecution and the risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia, considering both the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) and the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented by Mr [A] in light of relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It found that Mr [A]'s claims were inconsistent and that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that effective protection measures were available in Malaysia, and that it would be reasonable for Mr [A] to relocate within Malaysia to avoid any risk of harm. The Tribunal concluded that Australia did not have protection obligations towards Mr [A].