1820632 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse his application for a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm from loan sharks in Malaysia, alleging he had been threatened, followed, beaten, and nearly hit by a car prior to leaving Australia. His sister had also applied for a protection visa with similar claims related to debt.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or under section 36(2)(aa) as a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia. The court was required to consider the nexus for refugee status and the likelihood of significant harm for complementary protection.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant's claimed fear of harm from loan sharks did not establish the necessary refugee nexus required under section 36(2)(a). Furthermore, regarding complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa), the delegate was not satisfied there was a real risk of the applicant suffering significant harm. This conclusion was based on an assessment of the Malaysian authorities' willingness and effectiveness in combating illegal moneylending, supported by Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) reports and newspaper articles detailing police actions. The delegate concluded that Malaysian authorities could provide an adequate level of protection, meaning there was not a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.