1920622 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Malaysian citizen. The applicant claimed that due to his poor education, lack of full-time employment, and resulting financial difficulties, he would be unable to support his parents and pay off debts if returned to Malaysia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for being a refugee, specifically by having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether he would face significant harm if removed from Australia, thereby engaging Australia's complementary protection obligations. The Tribunal considered whether the applicant's circumstances, including being from a low-income household with unemployed parents, constituted membership of a particular social group and whether the economic conditions in Malaysia posed a real risk of significant economic hardship threatening his capacity to subsist.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the applicant's financial concerns and the economic challenges in Malaysia, the Tribunal found his evidence to be vague and inconsistent. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had demonstrated an ability to find employment in Australia and concluded that he could likely find work in Malaysia, particularly given his skills acquired in the agricultural sector and the economic focus of his home state. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's financial worries did not amount to a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined by the Act, especially as he had not raised all his concerns previously and had not demonstrated a lack of access to basic services or the capacity to earn a livelihood. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.