1900017 (Refugee)

The applicant, who arrived in Australia in 2017, sought review of a decision concerning his application for a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, including the complementary protection criterion, which requires a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The decision under review was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, presided over by Scott Collins.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had established a claim for protection, specifically considering the grounds raised in his visa application. These grounds related to the political and economic conditions in Malaysia, including currency depreciation, increased cost of living, and resulting financial hardship. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's personal circumstances, his limited knowledge of the contents of his visa application, and the country information relevant to Malaysia, including its political corruption, infrastructure and economic conditions, and ethnic and religious tensions.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the provisions of section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which outlines the complementary protection criterion. This criterion is engaged if there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to a receiving country, a person faces a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of financial hardship, noting that such hardship, without more, does not constitute significant harm. It also took into account country information and guidelines, including those prepared by the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as mandated by Ministerial Direction No. 84. The Tribunal found that the applicant's stated reasons for leaving Malaysia, primarily economic hardship and an inability to afford the cost of living, did not amount to a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not established that he met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.