2004228 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse the applicant a Protection visa. The applicant, who is from Malaysia, claimed he left his country for safety due to threats from "gangster society members" related to an outstanding loan for online gambling. He asserted that his family would be harmed if he returned and that authorities could not protect him, nor could he relocate within Malaysia. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the definition of a refugee or that there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Malaysia.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant was a refugee under section 36(2)(a) due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or whether he qualified for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) by facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant was a family member of someone who met these criteria, as per sections 36(2)(b) and (c).

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a Protection visa. While the applicant provided evidence of an outstanding loan and repayments made by his siblings, the Tribunal noted that his siblings were in stable employment and had ceased making payments in 2021, with no recent contact from the lenders to the family. The applicant had also worked for over 20 years in a factory and had lived in Malaysia for an extended period before travelling to Australia. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the requirements of section 36(2) of the Act.