1706289 (Refugee)

1706289 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 2456 (2 April 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1706289
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Malaysia
MEMBER:Christopher Smolicz
DATE:2 April 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 02 April 2020 at 9:49am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – financial problems in home country – loan sharks – remain in Australia to work to repay his loans – has never been threatened – does not fear serious harm in Malaysia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 24 March 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia, applied for the visa on 23 December 2016.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)–(6) and ss.5K–LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone on 1 April 2020. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Malay and English languages.
The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone.
The applicant consented to the hearing and did not raise any personal concerns in relation to holding a telephone hearing.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds because he has unpaid debts.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Background
The applicant is a [age]-year-old married male born in the state of Perak, Malaysia. His wife and [children] have remained in Malaysia. Prior to arriving in Australia he was employed [as] [an Occupation 1] working for [a specified] Industry. He provided a letter from his employer confirming that he was retrenched in November 2015 due to restructuring of the business.
He arrived in Australia [in] October 2016 travelling on an ETA visa which was valid for three months. He has not departed Australia.
The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s Malaysian passport and finds he is a citizen of Malaysia. The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s claims against Malaysia as the receiving country.
Summary of substantive claims
The applicant made the following brief written claims in support of his application for protection:
The applicant declared that he left Malaysia due to financial problems because he was retrenched by his employer. He had difficulty finding work because of his level of education and the poor state of Malaysian economy. He had many debts from financial institutions in Malaysia and borrowed money from loan sharks.
Since arriving in Australia he has undertaken farm work and been able to pay some of his debts in Malaysia.
He does not want to return to Malaysia because he will become jobless as the Malaysian economy is poor compared to the Australian economy.
He fears he will be harmed by the loan sharks because of his unpaid debts. He claims he received threats from the loan sharks.
He does not think the authorities in Malaysia will protect him because the police refused to make a report. He does not think relocating to another part of Malaysia would solve his problem.
When asked if he experienced harm in the Malaysia (Q.91) the applicant said “Maybe, because the loan sharks will do anything to me and will asked me paid the debts I owed from them”. (sic)
Tribunal hearing
The Tribunal questioned the applicant about why he came to Australia.
The applicant said that in 2015 he was retrenched and he travelled to Australia to look for work. It was difficult for him to find well paid employment in Malaysia at [his age] to support his family and repay his loans. He found it easy to obtain work in Australia and has been employed in a full-time position [in] South Australia. He said that he works hard and has been sending money to his wife every month and paying for his children’s education.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant lodged his claim for protection about three-and-a-half years ago. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he does not wish to return to Malaysia. The applicant said he wants to be able to stay in Australia for one or two more years so that he can earn sufficient money to settle his loans and pay for his children’s university studies.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he fears harm if he was to return to Malaysia. The applicant said that if he returns to Malaysia he will not face any physical harm and does not fear the government. He wants to remain in Australia to repay his loans.
The applicant said that he has managed to settle almost all of his loans and only his home loan remains outstanding. The home loan is an official loan with the [bank] and it would take about five years to repay the loan.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he has received any physical threats because of his unpaid loans. The applicant said he has never been threatened because of his loans.
The applicant said he only wants to remain in Australia for one or two years to work and there was no other reason why he wants to remain in Australia.
Well-founded fear of persecution
When considering the applicant’s claims against the refugee criteria the Tribunal notes that a person must fear serious harm for one or more of the reasons mentioned in s.5J(1)(a) (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion) and that reason(s) must be the essential and significant reason(s), s.5J(4)(a).
The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s evidence at the hearing and finds that he does not fear serious harm in Malaysia. The Tribunal finds the applicant wants to remain in Australia to work and earn money so that he can repay his home loan and pay for his children’s education in Malaysia. The applicant said at the hearing that he does not fear he will be physically threatened because of his loans if he returns to Malaysia.
Having considered the applicant’s claims the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would face serious harm if he was to return to Malaysia in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal finds that his fear of persecution is not well-founded.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
Complementary protection
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa).
The question for the Tribunal to determine is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to Malaysia there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm.
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment.
The threshold for the ‘real risk’ element in the complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa) is the same as that for the ‘real chance’ test in the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a).[1]
[1] MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505 (special leave to appeal from this judgment was refused: MIAC v SZQRB [2013] HCA Trans 323, 13 December 2013).
As detailed above the Tribunal finds the applicant wants to remain in Australia to work and repay his loans. He fears that due to his age and the economic conditions he will not be able to find suitable employment in Malaysia. The Tribunal finds the applicant does not fear serious harm in Malaysia because of his debts or any other reason. He does not fear harm from loan sharks due to unpaid debts. The applicant wants to remain in Australia because he has stable, well paid employment and is able to save money, pay for his children’s education and repay his home loan.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s concern that he may face some difficulty finding suitable employment because of the poor economic circumstances in Malaysia. The Tribunal finds however, that these circumstances are circumstances faced by the population of the country generally and is not just faced by the applicant personally. As such, in accordance with s.36(2B)(c), there is taken not to be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on his return to Malaysia.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Malaysia.
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Christopher Smolicz
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)    severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)   pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)    that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)   arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)    that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)   that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)    for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)   for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)    for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)   for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)    for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)    a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)   if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H   Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)    in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)   in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:    For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J    Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)    the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)   there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)    the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:    For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:    For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)    conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)   conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)    without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)    that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)   the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)    the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)    a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)   significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)    significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)   significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)    denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K   Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)    disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:    Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L   Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)    a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)   the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)    any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)   the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)    protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)   the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)    the person can access the protection; and
(b)   the protection is durable; and
(c)    in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36    Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)    a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)   a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)    a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)    the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)    it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)    the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2020] AATA 2456

2 April 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice