1707006 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by the first and second named applicants, who are from Malaysia. The applicants claimed to fear harm from loan sharks due to an inability to repay a debt. The dispute centred on whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, including the complementary protection criterion. The decision was made by Denis Dragovic.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia, specifically whether they constituted a particular social group as defined by the law, such as 'borrowers unable to make repayments threatened by debt collectors' or 'debtors' or 'Muslim debtors'. Additionally, the court considered whether the applicants had established substantial grounds for believing that Australia had protection obligations towards them as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, and whether any available options to reduce the risk of harm, such as through the Malaysian Muslim Consumers Association, were sufficient. The court also examined claims of political opinion, specifically the first applicant's participation in a Bersih rally, and whether this posed a risk of harm.

The court affirmed the decisions under review, concluding that the applicants had not established a real risk of significant harm. Regarding the loan shark debt, the court found that the first applicant had not taken sufficient steps to repay the debt or locate the loan sharks since arriving in Australia, despite having the financial means to do so. The court also noted that the applicant had not claimed to have suffered physical harm, only threats and harassment. Concerning the claim of political opinion, the court found that the first applicant's participation in a Bersih rally was low-profile and had not resulted in any repercussions since 2015, and that his stated intention to participate in future rallies was speculative and did not establish a real risk of harm. The court also considered the bullying of the applicants' children at school, but this was not found to constitute significant harm in the context of protection obligations.