1618106 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Malaysian citizen. The applicant, who was originally Buddhist, converted to Islam in 2002 to marry a Muslim woman. Following their divorce in 2014, the applicant sought to revert to Buddhism but stated that it was not possible to leave Islam in Malaysia. He claimed that if returned to Malaysia, he feared harassment by religious authorities and the community due to his non-observance of Islamic rules, and that he would be subject to detention and forced Islamic counselling. The decision under review was made by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and if not, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal was required to consider relevant policy guidelines and country information assessments in its determination.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, which evolved during the hearing. While initially claiming detention and threats, the applicant later clarified that he had never been detained, threatened, or slapped by religious authorities. He stated that his fear stemmed from the potential for arrest if he was found drinking alcohol or alone with a non-Muslim woman, due to his identification card stating he was Muslim. He acknowledged that he did not know the specific consequences if caught, but believed he could avoid such situations. The Tribunal found that the applicant's stated fears related more to inconvenience and frustration with restrictions rather than persecution. It also noted that the applicant had a non-Muslim girlfriend and had not provided evidence of being ostracised by non-Muslims. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and did not face a real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia.

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