1717843 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indian Muslim Malaysian, sought a protection visa, claiming he faced serious harm upon return to Malaysia due to business debts, threats from loan sharks, and racial discrimination against his ethnic and religious minority. The dispute concerned whether Australia had protection obligations towards him under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues: first, whether the applicant had a real chance of suffering serious harm in Malaysia due to his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, thereby meeting the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Act; and second, alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Malaysia, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, thus satisfying the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered policy guidelines and country information assessments, but ultimately placed significant weight on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's assessment of the situation for persons of Indian ethnicity in Malaysia. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of discrimination and threats from loan sharks, the Tribunal found that his past experiences in Malaysia, including his ability to secure employment and housing loans, did not support the assertion of a real risk of serious or significant harm. The Tribunal concluded that any discrimination he might encounter would not be of a kind amounting to serious or significant harm. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered it reasonable for the applicant to relocate within Malaysia, given his prior work experience and demonstrated ability to adapt to new environments, and therefore found no real risk of significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met either the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the applicant was not granted a protection visa.