1714105 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Malaysian national, sought a protection visa in Australia, claiming he could not return to Malaysia due to poor economic conditions and his inability to find employment. He argued that these circumstances would prevent him from supporting himself and his family, particularly in light of his brother's medical expenses and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The case was before the Tribunal, which was required to assess whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under either the 'refugee' criterion or 'complementary protection' grounds.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for specific reasons, or whether he qualified for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This latter ground requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, there is a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also considered the meaning of 'significant harm' as defined in section 36(2A) and the circumstances under which a real risk of such harm would not be found, as outlined in section 36(2B).

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not experienced any persecution in Malaysia and therefore did not meet the criteria for being a refugee. Furthermore, regarding complementary protection, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's concerns about economic conditions and employment prospects in Malaysia, even when considered alongside the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and his family's medical expenses, did not amount to a real risk of suffering significant harm as contemplated by the Act. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) and, accordingly, affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa.