1718555 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, who was lawfully in Australia on a bridging visa, claimed to have left Malaysia due to problems with a money lender. He alleged that he had borrowed money, was unable to repay it on time, and had been threatened with harm by the money lender, who had visited his home and workplace. The applicant also claimed that he did not seek help from the authorities because he was scared and had been warned not to inform the police, and that he believed the authorities would not protect him. He asserted that the money lender would find and harm him if he returned to Malaysia, and that he could not relocate within Malaysia as the money lenders were everywhere.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in section 5H(1)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and whether effective protection measures were available to him in Malaysia. A threshold issue was whether the applicant had entered into a loan agreement with an illegal money lender, which was necessary to establish his claims. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented by the applicant, including his claims of threats and harm, against the country information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) regarding loan shark activities in Malaysia.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It found that while the applicant had made claims of threats and potential harm from money lenders, there was insufficient evidence to establish that he had actually entered into a loan agreement with an illegal money lender, which was a prerequisite for his claim. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the DFAT report, which indicated that while loan sharks and their activities were a concern in Malaysia, and that borrowers could face threats or violence, there were also mechanisms for recourse. These included the availability of formal credit agencies to consolidate debts and provide payment plans, and the role of community organisations like the MCA and PPIM in mediating with loan sharks and assisting victims. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution that would engage Australia's protection obligations, nor had he shown that effective protection measures were unavailable to him in Malaysia.

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