1723673 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by a first-named applicant and his mother, the second-named applicant. The first-named applicant, an ethnic Chinese Buddhist from Malaysia, claimed he and his mother left Malaysia due to his father being killed by creditors and alleged persecution by the government. He stated he feared living in Malaysia and wished to remain in Australia for its perceived freedom and opportunities. The Tribunal considered the claims and evidence presented, including country information and departmental guidelines, in accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 84.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2) of the Act, and whether Australia had complementary protection obligations. The Tribunal was required to determine if there was a real risk of significant harm to the applicant, and if any such risk was faced by the population generally rather than the applicant personally. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate within Malaysia, or if protection could be obtained from Malaysian authorities, as stipulated by section 36(2B) concerning complementary protection.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of specific evidence supporting the claims of government persecution and the applicant's inability to articulate how the government mistreated them, beyond stating life was difficult. While the applicant claimed his father was killed by creditors in 2010, he did not provide details about who killed him when questioned. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm that was not faced by the Malaysian population generally. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the applicant did not demonstrate that relocation within Malaysia was unreasonable or that he could not obtain protection from Malaysian authorities.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act. The decision of the Tribunal was to affirm the previous decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.