1824865 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Malaysian citizen, sought a protection visa in Australia. The dispute arose from the applicant's claim that he left Malaysia due to economic hardship and the burden of GST, and that he feared returning would make it difficult to find work and support his family. He stated he had not experienced harm in Malaysia and believed he would be protected by authorities. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958 or entitled to complementary protection.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's stated reasons for leaving Malaysia, which included economic difficulties and a desire for more money to support his family. The applicant also mentioned being cheated in Kuala Lumpur and expressed a preference for remaining in Australia due to comfort. The Tribunal applied the definition of a refugee under section 5H of the Migration Act, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and that such persecution would involve serious harm. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons outlined in the Act. His stated reasons for leaving Malaysia were primarily economic, and he did not present evidence of facing or fearing serious harm or persecution upon return. The Tribunal noted that the applicant acknowledged his country's authorities would protect him and that he did not fear harm. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. The decision under review, which affirmed the refusal to grant the visa, was therefore affirmed.