1719757 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Malaysia due to her ethnicity, religion, and political opinion, specifically her support for the secessionist organisation SSKM. She also raised concerns about corruption, illegal immigration, and crime in Malaysia, and asserted that she would not be protected by the authorities due to the SSKM being a banned organisation.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant qualified for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required determining if Australia had protection obligations towards her, either because she was a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or because there was a real risk of significant harm if she were removed to Malaysia. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information assessments.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's own statements regarding her fear of harm. The applicant explicitly stated that she did not experience harm in Malaysia and did not believe she would be harmed if she returned. She also indicated that she did not think the authorities would protect her due to her support for the SSKM. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion, nor had she established a real risk of significant harm upon return. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's concerns about general societal issues like corruption and crime, while acknowledged, did not meet the threshold for persecution or significant harm as defined by the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered whether relocation within Malaysia would be a reasonable step, and whether effective protection measures were available, concluding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy any of the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).