1612565 (Refugee)

This matter concerned two applicants seeking protection visas. The applicants, who claimed to be citizens of Malaysia, asserted that they had fled their country due to their homosexual relationship, which was opposed by their families who wished them to marry women. They claimed that if returned to Malaysia, they would be forced into marriage and that their families would be able to locate them. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants' claims were made out and whether Australia had protection obligations towards them.

The central 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, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or under section 36(2)(aa), which concerns complementary protection obligations where there is a real risk of significant harm upon removal to a receiving country. The Tribunal also had to assess the credibility of the applicants' claims, considering that the onus is on applicants to provide sufficient detail to establish their case, and that allegations are not to be accepted uncritically.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered Ministerial Direction No. 56 and relevant policy guidelines and country information. It found that the applicants were citizens of Malaysia and had no right to enter or reside in any safe third country. The Tribunal applied the principles established in cases such as *MIEA v Guo & Anor*, *Nagalingam v MILGEA*, and *Prasad v MIEA*, noting that a claim of fear does not automatically establish its genuineness or that it is well-founded. The Tribunal concluded that the applicants had not provided sufficient detail to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicants. Therefore, the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under either section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa), nor the associated criteria under sections 36(2)(b) or (c). The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas.