1717872 (Refugee)

The applicant, a man from Malaysia, sought a protection visa in Australia. His claim for protection was based on a fear of harm from loan sharks in Malaysia due to an inability to repay a debt. The delegate initially considered the country information regarding Malaysia's effectiveness in combating illegal money lending and found no indication that the Malaysian state would be unable or unwilling to protect the applicant. The applicant later provided further evidence to the Tribunal, clarifying his residential and employment history and reiterating his fear of physical harm, including death, from the loan sharks if he returned to Malaysia.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958, which concerns complementary protection. This required the Tribunal to determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Malaysia, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal also had to consider the meaning of "significant harm" as defined in the Act and whether effective protection measures were available to the applicant in Malaysia.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's oral evidence and the documentary evidence, including the delegate's decision. While acknowledging the applicant's fear of loan sharks, the Tribunal noted that the country information suggested Malaysian authorities were reasonably effective in combating illegal money lending, and there was no specific evidence to suggest the State would be unable or unwilling to protect the applicant in his circumstances. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's revised evidence regarding his family's temporary relocation and his ability to avoid harassment by living elsewhere. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm that would engage Australia's protection obligations.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.