1820669 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa, claiming fear of harm from loan sharks in Malaysia. The dispute before Deputy President Jan Redfern concerned whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant's claims were based on alleged threats and harassment from loan sharks due to an inability to repay an illegal loan, leading to the closure of his business and his departure to Australia.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues: first, whether the applicant met the criteria for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, specifically whether his fear of harm from loan sharks had the requisite nexus to persecution for a Convention reason; and second, whether the applicant qualified for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, meaning there were substantial grounds for believing that removal to Malaysia would pose a real risk of significant harm.

The Deputy President found that the applicant's claimed fear of harm from loan sharks did not establish a refugee nexus, as it was not linked to any of the grounds specified in the *Migration Act* for persecution. Regarding complementary protection, the Deputy President considered country information and departmental guidelines, concluding that while instances of police corruption might exist, Malaysian authorities were generally willing and reasonably effective in combating illegal moneylending. Therefore, it was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, the applicant would face a real risk of significant harm, as effective protection measures were available.

Consequently, the Deputy President affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36 of the *Migration Act*.