1732882 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an applicant for a protection visa. The applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, claimed to have fled his home country due to substantial debts owed to loan sharks, who had allegedly threatened him and his family. He expressed fear of harm if returned to Malaysia, believing Malaysian authorities would not provide protection in such matters.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant possessed a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under s.5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958, or, failing that, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that his removal to Malaysia would result in a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's credibility, the evidence presented, and relevant country information, as well as Ministerial Direction No. 84 and associated guidelines.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's identity and that Malaysia was his receiving country. However, it found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for being a refugee under s.36(2)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa), as there were no substantial grounds for believing that he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia. The Tribunal affirmed the original decision not to grant the protection visa.