1712332 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by a family of four Malaysian citizens. The applicants claimed they could not return to Malaysia due to trauma and interference from individuals dissatisfied with the first applicant's family. The first applicant alleged experiencing harm related to her Iban ethnicity and stated she had reverted to Christianity after converting to Islam, which was complicated by an interfaith marriage. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicants met the refugee criterion under s 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa). The latter criterion applies if there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to a receiving country, a person faces a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal took into account the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. While acknowledging the first applicant's claims regarding her Iban ethnicity and religious conversion, the Tribunal found that the degree or intensity of ostracism or social discrimination she might face from Malaysian Christians did not amount to her facing a real chance of persecution. The Tribunal's reasoning, though not fully detailed in the provided text, led to the conclusion that the applicants did not meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.