1816173 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning a protection visa application made by a Malaysian national. The applicant, a Chinese Buddhist male, claimed he faced persecution in Malaysia due to a forced marriage situation, accusations of fathering a child, prior physical assaults by the woman's family, and potential economic hardship and age-related discrimination upon return. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or membership of a particular social group, or alternatively, whether there was a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia under the complementary protection provisions.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and the definitions of persecution and significant harm under the Migration Act 1958. It acknowledged that the applicant might face some age and ethnic discrimination in Malaysia, particularly concerning employment opportunities, and that this could lead to difficulties in finding work and potentially some economic hardship. However, the Tribunal found that such discrimination, individually or cumulatively, did not rise to the level of "serious harm" as defined by the Act, which requires threats to life or liberty, significant physical harassment or ill-treatment, significant economic hardship threatening subsistence, denial of basic services threatening subsistence, or denial of the capacity to earn a livelihood threatening subsistence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal assessed the applicant's claims against the definition of "significant harm" for complementary protection, which is exclusively defined in section 36(2A) of the Act. This definition includes arbitrary deprivation of life, the death penalty, torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The Tribunal concluded that the discrimination and economic difficulties the applicant might face in Malaysia did not meet this stringent definition of significant harm. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy either the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion.