1620536 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a female applicant who had left her country of origin due to marital separation and concerns about her ex-husband seeking sole custody of their child. The applicant claimed her ex-husband was forceful in his pursuit of custody and had threatened her. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, including the complementary protection criterion.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding her ex-husband's alleged threats and forceful behaviour, as well as her inability to seek help from lawyers or authorities due to her ex-husband's alleged interference. The Tribunal also examined the applicant's personal circumstances, including her employment, her child's residence with her parents in Malaysia, and her husband's alleged gambling and financial dependence. A key issue was the applicant's assertion that her ex-husband, despite his financial difficulties, would seek sole custody because she could not live without their child.

The Tribunal applied the principles of Ministerial Direction No. 56 and relevant policy and country information. It found that the applicant's claims about her ex-husband's intentions regarding child custody were not credible, particularly given his alleged inability to support the child. The Tribunal concluded that there were no substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would suffer significant harm, as defined by the Act, upon return to Malaysia. The applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.