1721173 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming she would face harm in Malaysia due to her brother-in-law's aggression. The dispute centred on whether the applicant would be harmed by her brother-in-law upon removal from Australia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the applicant's claims and the evidence presented.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as a refugee, or under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims, particularly in light of her changing statements regarding her initial application and her subsequent revised claims.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's initial claims related to Malaysia's economic and political situation and her alleged involvement in protests, which she later disavowed. Her revised claims focused on her brother-in-law's abusive behaviour towards her and her sister, his threats, and damage to her property, stemming from her sister's marriage to a Muslim man and the applicant's support for her sister. The Tribunal considered the definition of "significant harm" and the circumstances under which a person would not be taken to face a real risk of such harm, including the possibility of relocation within Malaysia or the availability of state protection. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the applicant's account, specifically regarding whether her brother-in-law damaged her fence or her car, and concluded that the evidence did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

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