1707101 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the protection visa applications of a mother and her son, both Malaysian citizens. The principal applicant claimed she left Malaysia with her son due to worsening economic conditions and her difficulty as a single mother in supporting her son's education. She stated her intention in coming to Australia was to earn more money to fund her son's future studies, as her Malaysian salary was insufficient.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to Malaysia, they would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the principal applicant's status as a single mother seeking to improve her financial situation to support her son's education, the Tribunal noted that she had been employed in Malaysia, lived with her brother and children in the family home, and stated that nothing would happen to her if she returned. The Tribunal considered country information regarding Malaysia's economic performance, concluding that the economic conditions were not such that the applicants could not subsist or would suffer significant economic hardship threatening their capacity to subsist, or be denied access to basic services or the capacity to earn a livelihood. Therefore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicants.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, as they failed to satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).