1725851 (Refugee)

The applicant, who arrived in Australia after departing Malaysia, sought a protection visa. The dispute concerned the applicant's claims of potential harm if returned to Malaysia, specifically relating to economic hardship and an inability to repay debts, as well as broader concerns about political repression. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, considering both the refugee convention and complementary protection obligations.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims, which were presented in written form and underwent some alteration between the initial and subsequent applications. The applicant's primary grounds for seeking protection appeared to stem from economic difficulties, including the need to borrow from unlicensed financial companies and an inability to repay debts, which he characterised as harm. He also raised concerns about the political system in Malaysia and the potential for imprisonment or assassination if speaking out against the truth. The Tribunal was required to assess whether these claims constituted a real risk of significant harm, as defined by the Act, and whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that while the applicant raised concerns about economic hardship and political issues, these did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or a real risk of significant harm as contemplated by the complementary protection provisions. The Tribunal applied the relevant sections of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), including s.36(2)(a) and s.36(2)(aa), and considered policy guidelines and country information. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that he would suffer significant harm if returned to Malaysia, and therefore, the decision under review should be affirmed. The Tribunal ordered that the decision under review be affirmed.