1720272 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Malay Muslim male, sought review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of his protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared harm from loan sharks in Malaysia due to an unpaid debt incurred to start a business. He alleged that loan sharks had threatened his family and him, and that he would be unable to find protection in Malaysia due to the illegal nature of the lenders.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia. This involved determining if the applicant belonged to a "particular social group" as defined by the Migration Act 1958, and if the harm he feared constituted persecution or significant harm. The Tribunal was also required to consider the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act, which assesses the risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 56, relevant policy guidelines, and country information. It noted that the applicant had not satisfied the criterion under s.36(2)(a) for a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal also examined the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa), which requires a real risk of significant harm. However, the decision text does not elaborate on the Tribunal's specific reasoning regarding the applicant's membership in a particular social group or the assessment of significant harm, other than stating that the applicant did not satisfy s.36(2).

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.