1511818 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution and a real risk of significant harm in Malaysia. The applicant alleged this fear stemmed from his abandonment of Islam and his participation in anti-government protests, specifically the Bersih rallies, and online dissemination of information critical of the Malaysian government. The case was heard by Amanda Paxton, a member of the Tribunal.

The central 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) by having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion or religion, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) by facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility and consider the available country information regarding the risks faced by individuals engaging in political activism and those who renounce their religion in Malaysia.

The Tribunal considered extensive country information regarding political protests and the Bersih movement in Malaysia, noting that while the constitution guarantees the right to assemble, political assemblies are closely administered and require permits. It was found that protesters face a low risk of arrest, and those arrested are commonly released on bail, with high-profile organisers facing a moderate risk of official discrimination. Regarding the applicant's religious claims, the Tribunal found no evidence to suggest he faced a real risk of significant harm from Islamic authorities or his family. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant, as a low-level participant in the Bersih rallies with no prominent role, did not face a real chance of arrest or harm under Malaysian law, including the Sedition Act, and therefore did not have a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under either section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958*.