1707613 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia, and whether effective protection measures were available to him in that country. The matter was heard by the Refugee Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether effective protection measures were available in Malaysia. Secondly, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant met the complementary protection criterion, meaning whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, there was a real risk of significant harm.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered extensive country information regarding the prevalence of loan sharking in Malaysia and the efforts of the Royal Malaysian Police to combat it. It noted that while concerns about corruption within the police force existed, the force was also described as professional and effective, with a demonstrated willingness and ability to protect victims of loan sharks. The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanation for not seeking assistance from authorities was not credible, and that effective state protection was available and accessible to him in Malaysia. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and did not face a real risk of significant harm, as any such risk would be reduced to a negligible level by available state protection.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that Australia did not have protection obligations towards him under either the refugee or complementary protection criteria.