1822391 (Refugee)

The case concerned two applicants for protection visas who sought review of decisions not to grant them these visas. The applicants, a married couple from Malaysia, claimed they feared returning to their country due to economic hardship, an inability to repay a loan from a loan shark, and potential difficulties in finding employment. They also submitted that their minority ethnic and religious status as Kadazan Catholics contributed to their lack of viable employment prospects.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as refugees, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as individuals facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia. The Tribunal was required to consider the definition of "refugee" and "significant harm" as set out in the Act, and to assess the evidence presented in light of relevant country information and ministerial directions.

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the protection visas. It found that the applicants' initial claims to the Department focused on economic difficulties and the inability to find work, without detailing the extent of the problems or mentioning the loan shark. While later submissions to the Tribunal introduced the loan shark and linked their financial hardship to discrimination based on ethnicity and religion, the Tribunal found that the applicants had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the applicants faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Malaysia, noting that the economic hardship described was not of a nature to constitute significant harm under the Act, and that there was no evidence of threats or relocations within the local area as suggested in their submissions. The Tribunal also considered country information indicating preferential policies for indigenous peoples in Malaysia.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review, finding that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of protection visas.