1705953/1705955 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa applications of two applicants who claimed they would face harm if returned to Malaysia. The applicants, who are married, alleged that the second applicant's family disapproved of their marriage and had threatened the first applicant with violence and sought to force the second applicant into a marriage with another person. They further claimed that the Malaysian authorities would not provide protection due to the family's alleged links to law enforcement and political figures.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was a real chance the applicants would suffer serious harm on return to Malaysia due to their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to Malaysia, they would face a real risk of suffering significant harm. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicants' claims and considering relevant country information and policy guidelines.

The Tribunal applied the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires substantial grounds for believing that a real risk of significant harm will be suffered as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The Tribunal also considered the definitions of "significant harm" and the circumstances under which a person would not be taken to face such a risk, including the availability of effective protection measures and the reasonableness of relocation. Despite the applicants' claims of threats and potential forced marriage, the Tribunal concluded that the decisions under review should be affirmed.

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant either applicant a protection visa, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act.