1706232 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an applicant seeking to avoid return to Malaysia. The applicant's claims, as initially lodged and elaborated at a hearing, centred on economic hardship in Malaysia, including currency devaluation, rising prices, and an inability to earn a living. The applicant also indicated he had experienced harm in Malaysia related to his salary and had an altercation with his employer. Further, he raised concerns about a custody battle with his ex-wife over their child, stating he did not want to surrender the child.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had established a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm if returned to Malaysia. This required the Tribunal to consider both the Convention refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Act and the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa), which applies where there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to a receiving country, there is a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal was also required to consider relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant expressed concerns about economic hardship and a custody dispute, these did not, in themselves, establish a claim for protection under the Act. The applicant's initial claims focused on economic reasons for leaving Malaysia, and while he later mentioned being tricked regarding his salary and having an altercation, he did not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm. The Tribunal noted the applicant's admission that he did not put much information into his application and that his primary reason for leaving was economic. The custody battle was also not framed as a claim for protection. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established that he met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the applicant's protection visa application was not successful.