1720041 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa, who claimed to have fled Malaysia due to threats from loan shark associates after acting as a guarantor for a friend's debt. The applicant asserted that he had made a police report and attempted to relocate within Malaysia, but these actions did not resolve his fear of being found and killed. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Malaysia for one of the five prescribed reasons, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that his removal to Malaysia would result in a real risk of significant harm.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold: first, whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as outlined in section 5J. Second, if the refugee criterion was not met, the Tribunal had to consider the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, there is a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal applied the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), including sections 5H, 5J, and 36(2)(aa), and considered Ministerial Direction No. 84, the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information assessments from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia. The applicant's claims were not substantiated by independent documentation, and the Tribunal found that the circumstances described did not meet the threshold for protection obligations under the Act.

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