1511528 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to the applicants, who claimed to be citizens of Malaysia. The applicants arrived in Australia in January 2015 and applied for a protection visa in March 2015, stating they left Malaysia due to their families’ disapproval of their relationship, which they feared would lead to harm and divorce upon their return. The delegate had raised concerns regarding the vagueness of their claims, lack of corroborative evidence, and the applicants' ability to relocate within Malaysia, questioning the genuineness of their fear of persecution.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the five prescribed reasons under s.5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), or, failing that, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to Malaysia, they faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The court also considered the criteria for a protection visa as set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which include obligations under the 'refugee' criterion or 'complementary protection' grounds.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicants had married against the wishes of the primary review applicant's family, causing them distress. However, it was not satisfied that the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The Tribunal noted that the applicants indicated they could relocate to another area in Malaysia to avoid confrontation and did not fear physical harm from the primary review applicant's family. Furthermore, the second named applicant's family had accepted the relationship, suggesting potential support upon return. The Tribunal also considered that the applicants may have received poor advice regarding their visa options.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicants had not met the criteria for a protection visa. The application for review was therefore dismissed.