1707021 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse a Protection (Class XA) Subclass 866 visa. The applicant, a Malaysian citizen, claimed she had commenced a relationship with the son of a Member of Parliament (MP) in Malaysia. She asserted that the MP disapproved of the relationship due to her family's financial status and had threatened to kill her, sending people to follow her. The applicant claimed she could not relocate within Malaysia and feared she would be killed if returned.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant feared persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Malaysia.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not appear at the hearing to provide oral testimony and had not provided any written submissions or further evidence beyond her initial visa application. Consequently, the assessment was based solely on the applicant's written claims. The Tribunal considered country information indicating that Malaysian authorities, including the Royal Malaysia Police, are effective in maintaining law and order and that the judiciary complies with the rule of law. There was no information suggesting the applicant would not receive assistance from the police if requested, or that Malaysian authorities would be unable or unwilling to protect her. The Tribunal found the applicant's assertions of a threat to be bare and unsubstantiated, lacking detail and not having been tested under oath. Therefore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant feared persecution or had a well-founded fear of persecution, nor that there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. The applicant was not satisfied as a refugee under s.5H(1) of the Act, nor was Australia found to have protection obligations under s.36(2)(a). Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, the applicant would suffer significant harm under s.36(2)(aa).