1706168 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Malaysian national. The applicant's claim for protection arose from his role as a guarantor for a friend's loan from illegal loan sharks. When the friend disappeared, the applicant was subjected to threats, physical abuse, and had his bank card taken by the loan sharks to settle the debt. He alleged that the Malaysian authorities were unable or unwilling to provide assistance due to the loan sharks' political and financial influence, and that attempts to relocate within Malaysia were unsuccessful as he was tracked and harassed. The applicant sought review of the decision not to grant him a protection visa.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Malaysia, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It found that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons outlined in section 5J(1). Crucially, the Tribunal also found that the applicant had not demonstrated substantial grounds for believing that he would suffer significant harm upon return to Malaysia, as contemplated by section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal's reasoning implicitly considered the applicant's claims of harm and the alleged lack of protection in Malaysia, but ultimately found them insufficient to meet the threshold for protection.