1712411 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a male applicant from Kedah, Malaysia. The applicant arrived in Australia in February 2017 and applied for a protection visa shortly thereafter, stating he fled Malaysia due to significant debt owed to loan sharks and a fear of harm if he returned. A delegate of the Minister refused the application, finding the applicant was not a refugee and that he would receive effective protection from Malaysian authorities against threats from illegal money lenders. The applicant sought review of this decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met any of the criteria for a protection visa under sections 36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa), 36(2)(b), and 36(2)(c) of the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, the court had to consider 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, or whether he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, and if effective protection measures were available to him in Malaysia.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of relevant policy guidelines and country information. It acknowledged the importance of a reasonable approach to credibility but affirmed that the onus remained on the applicant to satisfy the statutory elements. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not claimed to fear harm based on protected characteristics such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing the applicant would suffer significant harm, noting that country information suggested Malaysian authorities were reasonably effective in combating illegal money lending and that the applicant would likely receive effective protection. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under s.36(2) by being a family member of someone who met the criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.