1704350 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by a young man. The applicant had initially made certain claims in his written application, but at the hearing, he candidly stated that these claims were untrue. He admitted that he did not meet the definition of a refugee and would not face significant harm if returned to Malaysia. The sole reason he expressed for not wishing to return to Malaysia was that his wife was pregnant.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether effective protection measures were unavailable. The Tribunal also considered the alternative criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which concerns the risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being returned to the receiving country.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's admission that his initial claims were untrue and that he did not fear persecution for any of the prescribed reasons. While acknowledging the applicant's desire not to return to Malaysia during his wife's pregnancy, the Tribunal found that any difficulties arising from this situation did not constitute persecution for a Convention reason. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real risk of the applicant suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his return to Malaysia, nor that effective protection measures were unavailable. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria by being a family member of someone who did.

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