1707532 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Department of Home Affairs concerning a protection visa. The applicant, a Malaysian citizen of Chinese ethnicity, claimed he feared returning to Malaysia due to significant debt and threats from a lender, which he believed put his life at risk. He also stated he did not believe he could relocate within Malaysia.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act for complementary protection. This involved assessing whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, the applicant would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the Refugee Convention and the complementary protection provisions. It noted that the applicant had stated he had not experienced harm in Malaysia, did not seek assistance there, and believed Malaysian authorities would protect him. The Tribunal also had regard to country information regarding the Malaysian economy and employment rates. It concluded that the economic hardship and debt the applicant feared were not discriminatory or targeted in a way that would engage the refugee definition. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a real risk of significant harm as required for complementary protection, nor had he demonstrated that he could not relocate within Malaysia.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.