1821208 (Refugee)

The applicant, who arrived in Australia on a visitor visa, sought a protection visa on the basis of fearing harm from loan sharks in Malaysia. The delegate refused the application, finding that the applicant's claimed fear of harm did not meet the refugee criterion due to a lack of a relevant nexus, and that there was no real risk of significant harm for complementary protection purposes, as Malaysian authorities were considered willing and reasonably effective in combating illegal moneylending. The applicant subsequently provided evidence and gave testimony before Deputy President Jan Redfern.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act) as a refugee, or under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act for complementary protection, based on a real risk of significant harm if removed from Australia. This involved assessing the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution and the availability of effective protection measures in Malaysia.

Deputy President Redfern considered the applicant's claims of threats and violence from loan sharks, as well as the applicant's assertion that the police would not act unless a complainant was injured. However, the Deputy President noted the lack of documentary evidence to support these claims, despite opportunities provided to the applicant to submit such material. Relying on extracts from a DFAT country information report and newspaper articles detailing police action against loan sharks in Malaysia, the Deputy President found that Malaysian authorities were willing and able to provide adequate protection. The Deputy President concluded that there was not a real risk of the applicant suffering significant harm, and therefore Australia did not have protection obligations under section 36 of the Act.

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