1821043 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of the decision to refuse him a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm from loan sharks in Malaysia due to debts incurred by his uncle, for which he alleged he was being held responsible. The delegate had previously refused the visa, finding that the applicant's claims did not meet the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to a lack of refugee nexus, nor the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) as there was no real risk of significant harm.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under section 5H, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether effective protection measures were available in Malaysia. The Tribunal also had to assess whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, the applicant would suffer significant harm, as defined in section 36(2A).

The Tribunal considered the applicant's oral evidence and the Department's Country Information Report for Malaysia. It noted that the applicant's initial claims regarding his uncle's debts were inconsistent with his later evidence about his own personal borrowing. The Tribunal found that while loan shark activity existed in Malaysia, the Malaysian authorities were willing and reasonably effective in combating it, and that the applicant could access adequate protection. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and that there was no real risk of him suffering significant harm.

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