2011497 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Malaysian national. The applicant claimed he was at risk of harm if returned to Malaysia due to his attempts to expose environmental pollution from a state-owned factory where he had worked. He alleged he was threatened and assaulted by gangsters acting on behalf of the factory's management and that the government would not provide protection. The applicant's claims were based on his membership of a particular social group, identified as a "whistleblower" attempting to raise awareness about harm caused by a government-owned factory, and/or his actual or imputed political opinion against the authorities responsible for the factory.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was owed protection obligations under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and clause 866.221 of Schedule 2 to the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether effective protection measures were available in Malaysia. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "significant harm" and whether the applicant could reasonably relocate within Malaysia or obtain protection from authorities.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It noted that while the applicant claimed to be of Malay-Chinese ethnicity and Christian faith, his claims primarily related to his actions as a whistleblower and his perceived political opposition to authorities. The Tribunal considered the available country information and the applicant's submissions, but concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. Specifically, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated that he would suffer significant harm, nor that he could not access effective protection in Malaysia. The applicant's failure to provide further evidence or oral testimony to the Tribunal after seeking review was also a factor in its assessment.