1605180 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa applications of a married couple, both ethnically Chinese and Buddhist, who claimed to have been farmers in Malaysia. The applicants alleged that their farm and greenhouses were bulldozed by authorities, and they were physically assaulted by soldiers, after being accused of illegally using forest reserve land. They contended that this action was discriminatory and that they had been cultivating the land for decades, paying land tax, and had previously held provisional land certificates.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia. This involved assessing the applicants' claims against the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958*, including the definitions of persecution, significant harm, and effective protection measures, as well as considering Ministerial Direction No. 56 and associated policy guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicants' account described a distressing event involving the destruction of their property and physical mistreatment, it did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, nor did it demonstrate a real risk of significant harm as defined by the Act. The Tribunal noted the limited evidence provided to substantiate the claims and the absence of evidence suggesting that the actions taken against them were due to their ethnicity or that they would face such persecution or harm upon return to Malaysia. The Tribunal also considered whether effective protection measures were available in Malaysia.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria for such a visa.