2106241 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm upon return to Malaysia due to a failed business investment scheme, alleging betrayal by a business partner who invested investor funds in a fraudulent multi-level marketing company. This led to the freezing of bank accounts by Malaysian authorities, demands for repayment from investors, the applicant's conviction, and threats and harm to the applicant and their family from investors and appointed debt collectors.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) (refugee criterion) or section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection criterion) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's claims of fear of persecution or significant harm, considering the evidence provided and relevant guidelines, including those from the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It found that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a). Furthermore, while acknowledging the applicant's stated fears of harm from investors, debt collectors, and authorities, the Tribunal implicitly concluded that these fears did not establish a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, nor did it find that effective protection measures were unavailable. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2) as a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.