2007451 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Singapore. The applicant claimed to fear harm from loan sharks due to outstanding gambling debts, alleging past harassment, threats, assault, and false imprisonment. The applicant also asserted that Singaporean authorities would not intervene in moneylending disputes and that relocation within Singapore was not a viable option to avoid the loan sharks. The Tribunal was required to determine whether Australia owed protection obligations to the applicant under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically by reference to the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa).

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the relevant legislative provisions and country information. It noted that if a person does not meet the refugee criterion, they may still qualify for a visa if there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to their country of nationality, they face a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal also took into account Ministerial Direction No. 84, the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a citizen of Singapore and had no right to reside elsewhere, thus s 36(3) of the Act was not applicable. Crucially, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under s 36(2) of the Act, including the complementary protection criterion. There was no suggestion that the applicant qualified as a family member of someone who met the protection criteria. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.