1605238 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the protection visa claims of applicants who are nationals of Malaysia. The primary applicant asserted that she left Malaysia due to fears for her child's safety, citing two alleged kidnapping attempts within nine months of the child's birth. She also claimed that her home was located in an area known for child abductions and that she was ignored by the police when she reported the incidents, leaving her without a formal report. The applicant stated she felt unable to relocate within Malaysia due to family ties in the same area.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Australia owed protection obligations to the applicants under section 36(2)(a) (refugee criterion) or section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection criterion) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, they faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal found the applicant's claims to be vague and lacking in detail, noting that the onus was on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to establish their claims, and the Tribunal had no obligation to assist in establishing them. The Tribunal considered Ministerial Direction No. 56 and relevant policy guidelines and country information. Applying the principles of section 36(2)(aa), the Tribunal concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would suffer significant harm upon removal to Malaysia. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants met either the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion.

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