1811445 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, claimed to be a Christian who had faced pressure to convert to Islam and feared persecution upon return to Malaysia. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or under complementary protection provisions.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, and whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, the applicant would suffer significant harm. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding threats from Muslim extremists, the issuance of a fatwa, and the alleged inability of Malaysian authorities to provide protection. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's background and the circumstances surrounding his alleged fear, including his past marriage and the conversion of his former wife to Islam.

The Tribunal applied the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* concerning protection visas, including the definitions of "refugee" and "well-founded fear of persecution," as well as the criteria for "significant harm" under the complementary protection provisions. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not provided comprehensive details about his background in his initial application, but later provided some information regarding his upbringing and work history in Sabah. Crucially, the Tribunal found that while the applicant claimed to have faced pressure to convert to Islam, this pressure was primarily attributed to friends and individuals associated with his ex-wife, who had converted to Islam. The Tribunal did not find that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, nor did it find substantial grounds to believe he would suffer significant harm upon return to Malaysia. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant qualified as a member of the same family unit as another person who held a protection visa, which was not suggested to be the case.

Ultimately, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.