1711627 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a non-citizen in Australia. The applicant claimed he was threatened by loan sharks due to his father's gambling debts, which he attempted to repay. His efforts to repay his father's debt led to him being unable to meet his own financial obligations, resulting in his declaration of bankruptcy in Malaysia. The applicant also raised concerns about his ability to work and own property due to his undischarged bankruptcy. The decision under review was affirmed by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the applicant met the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and alternatively, whether he met the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa). This involved assessing the applicant's claims of persecution by loan sharks and the implications of his bankruptcy in Malaysia on his ability to obtain protection in that country. The Tribunal was required to consider the meaning of "significant harm" as defined in ss.36(2A) and (2B) and whether the applicant faced a real risk of suffering such harm if returned to Malaysia.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence regarding the threats from loan sharks and his subsequent bankruptcy. It noted that the applicant had paid off his father's debt and that the loan sharks had ceased their harassment. Regarding his bankruptcy, the Tribunal considered country information which indicated restrictions on undischarged bankrupts, including limitations on spending, asset seizure, and certain employment and business ownership restrictions. However, the applicant confirmed he could continue in his previous employment and that his bankruptcy was being addressed by a lawyer with a view to termination upon repayment of debts. The Tribunal concluded that, based on the evidence presented and the relevant guidelines, the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.