1731540 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a Malaysian national seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed he left Malaysia due to his mother's debt to illegal money lenders, fearing threats to his family if the debt was not repaid. He asserted that Australian authorities could not protect him due to the money lenders' extensive network.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958. This involved determining if he qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or if he was owed complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) because there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Malaysia. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant was a member of the same family unit as a person who met these criteria.

The Tribunal applied the definitions of "refugee" and "well-founded fear of persecution" as outlined in sections 5H and 5J of the Act, and the provisions relating to "significant harm" and "effective protection measures" under sections 36(2A), 36(2B), and 5LA. It noted that the applicant had not claimed to have experienced harm in Malaysia prior to his departure and had not relocated within Malaysia for safety. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion as he had not claimed fear of persecution for one of the prescribed reasons. Furthermore, it concluded that he did not meet the complementary protection criterion because there were available protection measures in Malaysia, meaning there was not a real risk of him suffering significant harm.

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