1714992 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, born a Muslim in Malaysia, claimed to have converted to Seventh Day Adventist Christianity. She alleged that she could not legally convert in Malaysia, had been deserted by her family, and faced anger and hatred from friends and neighbours, including physical assault by a neighbour's son. The applicant further claimed that reporting the assault to the police was futile as they were predominantly Muslim and dismissed her complaint. She asserted that relocation within Malaysia was not feasible due to the pervasive mentality and that Malaysia offered no safe place for her. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, presided over by Brendan Darcy, was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, including the complementary protection criterion.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of country information regarding religion, religious conversion, and apostasy in Malaysia. It noted that while the Malaysian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, the practice of religions other than Sunni Islam is subject to constraints. Crucially, the Tribunal examined the significant legal and practical difficulties associated with formally leaving or converting from Islam in Malaysia, including the jurisdiction of syariah courts, the rarity of obtaining permission for apostasy, and the potential for criminal penalties in some states, although DFAT was not aware of such punishments being applied in practice. The Tribunal also considered the landmark case of *Lina Joy*, which highlighted the impediments to conversion from Islam.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. While acknowledging the applicant's stated conversion and the difficulties associated with apostasy in Malaysia, it appears the Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish a real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia, or that the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion under s 36(2)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal's reasoning, as presented, indicates a finding that the applicant did not satisfy the necessary criteria for the grant of a protection visa.