1506440 (Refugee)

This matter concerned protection visa applications made by three applicants, who claimed to be citizens of Malaysia. The first applicant stated she was an ethnic Malay Muslim, as were her husband (the second applicant) and their son (the third applicant). The applicants claimed they had suffered discrimination in Malaysia due to their son's perceived "girly behaviours" and their family's perceived failure to educate him in an "Islamic way." They asserted that returning to Malaysia would place them at risk of harm and discrimination, particularly concerning their son's gender non-conformity.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing whether the applicants had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia, considering their ethnicity, religion, and the specific circumstances relating to their son's gender expression. The Tribunal was also required to consider relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims, including allegations of discrimination from neighbours, family, and employers, and the fear of losing custody of their son if returned to Malaysia. However, the Tribunal found that none of the applicants satisfied the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee convention or the complementary protection provisions. The decision noted that there was no suggestion that any applicant qualified as a family member of someone who met the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.