1835473 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to fear persecution in Malaysia due to significant debts owed to a money lender and the involvement of gangsters. The applicant alleged that the money lenders had hired gangsters to harm him and his family, and that he came from a poor family. He also stated that he had heard Australia was a good place to work and that if he returned to Malaysia, the gangsters would use violence against him. The decision was made by Nora Lamont, a Member of the Tribunal.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and if not, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Malaysia, he would suffer significant harm, thereby meeting the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as mandated by Ministerial Direction No. 84.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It found that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the Act. While the applicant presented claims regarding debt and threats from gangsters, the Tribunal's reasoning, as indicated by the outcome, suggests these claims did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the protected reasons, nor did they meet the threshold for significant harm under the complementary protection provisions. The decision explicitly states that there was no suggestion the applicant satisfied section 36(2) on the basis of being a family member of someone who held a protection visa, and therefore, the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2).