2217329 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Malaysia, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant's claims for protection were based on economic hardship in Malaysia, his inability to support his family, and his fear of difficulty finding employment upon return due to his age and the general economic decline in his country. He also indicated he had not experienced harm in Malaysia and did not fear harm upon return, nor did he fear mistreatment from authorities.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or whether Australia had protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. 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, or whether there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Malaysia.

The court considered the applicant's claims in light of the legislative definitions of "refugee" and "significant harm." It noted that the applicant had explicitly stated he had not experienced harm in Malaysia and did not fear harm upon return, including from his ex-wife. The court found that general economic conditions and economic disadvantage, as described by the applicant, did not amount to persecution or significant harm under the Act. The applicant's inability to find work due to his age and the economic situation in Malaysia was assessed as economic hardship, which, in the absence of a threat to his capacity to subsist, did not meet the threshold for significant harm. Furthermore, the applicant indicated he could relocate within Malaysia to an area where he would not be harmed, and that the risk he faced was faced by the population generally, not personally.

Consequently, the court affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).