1719721 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Malaysian citizen, sought a protection visa in Australia, claiming he feared persecution in Malaysia due to his conversion to Shia Islam. He alleged past harm, including physical beatings by family and friends, abuse at school, and threats from authorities, and expressed concerns about his mental health and access to treatment upon return. The Department of Home Affairs had previously refused his application, and this decision was under review by the Tribunal.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the 'refugee' criterion, as defined by section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or under the 'complementary protection' criterion, as defined by section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion in Malaysia, or if there was a real risk of significant harm upon his removal to Malaysia.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and the legislative definitions of 'refugee' and 'significant harm'. It noted inconsistencies in the applicant's statements regarding his background, including the circumstances of his conversion, the nature of abuse experienced, and details about his education and employment. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims about abuse at school were incorrect as he was Sunni at that time, and that his parents, rather than friends, were the source of abuse following his conversion. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that country information suggested Malaysian authorities primarily focused on proselytising activities rather than low-profile individuals. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, and therefore did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958, nor was there any suggestion he was a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.