1720357 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by an individual who had left Malaysia due to financial difficulties stemming from a loan from a loan shark. The applicant claimed to have been threatened, beaten, and tortured by the loan shark and his associates due to an inability to repay the debt, and asserted that relocation within Malaysia was not a viable option as the group had a widespread presence.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a refugee nexus reason, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that removal to Malaysia would result in a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also had to consider whether any applicable exceptions or qualifications to these criteria were present.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant's claims did not establish a refugee nexus, as the fear of harm was not based on race, religion, nationality, or political opinion, nor did it involve an immutable characteristic. Consequently, the Tribunal considered the complementary protection criteria. It reviewed country information regarding Malaysia, which indicated that while illegal money lending was prevalent, the Royal Malaysian Police (RMP) were generally willing and able to take action against such activities and criminal gangs. The Tribunal concluded that effective protection was available to the applicant from Malaysian authorities, and therefore, there was not a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Malaysia.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.