2101813 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa after leaving Malaysia due to significant debts incurred from loan sharks. The applicant claimed to have been threatened with death and subjected to physical violence by organised gangs, alleging that these gangs were protected by corrupt local police, rendering any recourse to domestic authorities futile. The applicant also stated that attempts to hide within Malaysia were unsuccessful and that he believed he could not relocate to a safer area within the country.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia. This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group, and whether there was a real risk of significant harm in Malaysia, considering the availability of state protection and the possibility of internal relocation.

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), including the definitions of "refugee" and "significant harm," and considered Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, and Complementary Protection Guidelines. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a). Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), as there was no suggestion that he met the criteria for being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied section 36(2)(a) or (aa) and held a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.