1711954 (Refugee)

The applicants sought protection visas, claiming the first applicant had suffered abuse from her ex-husband, Mr A, and that both she and the second applicant, her current husband, feared for their safety and the safety of their son due to Mr A's threats and actions. The applicants contended that Mr A had a history of violence and threats, including threats to kill the second applicant and damage his property, and that he had connections throughout Malaysia, making relocation within the country impossible. The decision under review was made by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as refugees, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as persons facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicants' claims and the evidence presented, including police reports and personal documents, in light of relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims of past abuse and ongoing threats from the ex-husband. However, it found inconsistencies and a lack of credible evidence to support the claims of a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm. The Tribunal noted that the submitted documents, such as police reports, were not translated, and ultimately concluded that the applicants did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that none of the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, including the criterion for being a member of the same family unit as a person who holds a protection visa.