1710845 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Malaysian national, sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa. The applicant's claims were based on his difficult childhood, including an addicted father and an absent mother, and his relatives' attempts to hold him responsible for his father's debts. A second applicant, identified as Applicant 2, initially relied on being a member of the primary applicant's family unit but had since ceased contact and left Australia. The case was heard by the Tribunal.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under sections 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved determining if the applicant was a refugee due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or if there was a real risk of significant harm if he were removed from Australia to Malaysia. A further issue was whether Applicant 2 remained a member of the applicant's family unit for the purposes of a protection visa claim.

The Tribunal reasoned that Applicant 2 was no longer a member of the applicant's family unit, having separated from him over five years prior and subsequently left Australia. As Applicant 2 had made no independent protection claims and was no longer in Australia, she did not meet the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa). Regarding the applicant's own claims, the Tribunal considered the country information for Malaysia and the legal guidelines concerning protection obligations. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm in Malaysia, and therefore did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.