1717134 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant, a Malaysian citizen, a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear returning to Malaysia due to debts incurred from a collapsed business, alleging that debt collectors had hired "sharks" to recover the money and had previously doused his house with petrol as a warning, threatening him with drug trafficking or death. The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a refugee and there was no real risk of significant harm upon removal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under section 5H(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Malaysia, there was a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal considered the applicant's oral evidence, his protection visa application forms, the delegate's decision record, and a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report on Malaysia.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted the applicant's stated preference for a working visa to earn money to repay his debts and visit his family, rather than a protection visa. Crucially, when questioned about the actions of debt collectors upon his return, the applicant expressed uncertainty about threats of violence, stating that politicians and the police were now "getting strong" and that debt collectors would not "get away with threatening violence." He also confirmed he would report any threats to the Malaysian police and believed they would act to protect him, particularly under the current government. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a real chance of suffering significant harm upon return to Malaysia.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.