1901651 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against a decision of the Tribunal to affirm the refusal of a protection visa. The applicant, a Catholic Indian Malay male, initially claimed fear of harm from a rival gang due to suspected involvement in a fatal gang fight. However, at the hearing, the applicant stated that his original claims were incorrect, having been completed by an agent without his full understanding. He asserted he was not a refugee and sought a visa allowing him to work and travel to Malaysia, rather than a protection visa. The Tribunal clarified it could only consider the protection visa application, and the applicant elected to proceed.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant faced a real chance of persecution in Malaysia for one of the five prescribed reasons under s 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or, alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's personal circumstances, including his background, employment, family support, and travel history, in conjunction with country information relevant to Malaysia.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It found that the applicant's claims of fear of harm from a loan shark, to whom he made regular payments without recent threats, were undetailed and unsupported by documentation. While acknowledging some discrimination or harm in Malaysia, the Tribunal concluded it did not reach the level of persecution or significant harm as defined by the Act. The applicant's ethnicity and religion as an Indian Christian were considered, but the country information did not indicate a risk of persecution or significant harm to him on these grounds. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's own assertion that he was not a refugee and did not wish to claim refugee status.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under s 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958. The decision under review was affirmed, meaning the protection visa was refused.