1706455 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Malaysia, sought a protection visa in Australia after arriving in October 2016. The applicant's claims for protection were based on her husband's involvement with the Bersih 3.0 rally, subsequent discrimination, humiliation, threats, and difficulty finding employment, which she contended made it impossible for her to earn a livelihood and forced her to leave Malaysia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered these claims in determining whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant.

The primary legal issue before the AAT 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. Alternatively, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The Tribunal also had to assess the applicant's credibility and the evidence presented in support of her claims.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's identity and nationality as Malaysian. However, it found that the applicant's claims did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution under section 36(2)(a). Specifically, the applicant could not recall when the Bersih 3.0 rallies occurred, and her involvement was primarily due to her husband's participation. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not claim to be a member of a particular social group or to hold a political opinion that would place her at risk. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a real risk of significant harm under section 36(2)(aa), finding that the difficulties she faced, such as job prospects and the role of breadwinner, did not amount to significant harm as defined by the Act, nor were they a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criteria under either section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958*. The Tribunal also noted that there was no suggestion the applicant satisfied the criteria as a family member of someone who held a protection visa.