1829457 (Refugee)

1829457 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4243 (9 July 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1829457
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Malaysia
MEMBER:Carolyn Graydon
DATE:9 July 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 09 July 2024 at 2:14pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – religion – Muslim in relationship with Christian – families’ opposition and legal prohibition of marriage unless partner converts – relationship ceased while applicant in Australia – period of non-practicing religion and same-sex questioning, now observant with new (male) partner and son – travelled to Australia with acquaintance in equivalent situation, then re-met in workplace – partner’s separate application for protection – fear of harm from ex-girlfriend’s family – vague, inconsistent, contrived and unconvincing claims and evidence – return to home country after father’s death – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), 5AAA, 5H(1)(a), 5H(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65, 423A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
MIEA v Guo Wei Rong and Pan Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 1 October 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia, applied for the visa on 31 January 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 May 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Malay and English languages.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Before the Department
Protection visa application
The applicant claims to be a [Age]-year-old Malaysian citizen who was born in Negri Sembilan, in Malaysia. In her protection visa application form, the applicant’s claims can be summarised as follows:
·She is Muslim and formed a relationship with a Christian boyfriend. According to Sharia law, any person wanting to marry a Muslim must first convert to Islam.
·Her family strongly opposed her plan to marry her boyfriend and her boyfriend’s family would not allow him to convert to Islam. As a result, she became stressed and planned to leave Malaysia with her boyfriend.
·If she returns to Malaysia she will be unable to marry her boyfriend as both families are opposed to the match and the laws would require him to convert to Islam for them to marry.
·Authorities will not provide her with protection if she returns to Malaysia because Muslims are prohibited to marry someone of a different religion.
·The laws apply across the whole of Malaysia so there is no option to live elsewhere within Malaysia.
Supporting documents
In addition to her protection visa application, the applicant provided the Department with copies of her Malaysian passport.
Protection visa application interview
The Department did not invite the applicant to attend an interview.
Delegate’s decision
The delegate tentatively accepted that the applicant was a member of a particular social group, being people in mixed-religion relationships, but refused to grant the visa due to evidence the risk of family or social pressure or ostracism would not amount to serious harm and the availability of protection from police. Under the complementary protection criteria the delegate also found that the applicant had access to state protection and any harm faced would not amount to significant harm.
Evidence before the Tribunal
On 9 October 2018, the applicant applied for review of the delegate’s decision and provided the Tribunal with the delegate’s notification letter and decision record.
Pre-hearing submissions
On 16 January 2024 the Tribunal sent to the applicant a pre-hearing information form which contained various questions for the applicant to complete.
On 23 January 2024 the applicant provided her completed form to the Tribunal. The section inviting her to provide further information regarding her protection claims:
·Restated that she had fled Malaysia due to being in a relationship with a Christian so they could marry in Australia and ‘when we were here, our relationship didn’t last long and we fought and we decided not to be together anymore’.
·Said that since living in Australia her religious identity had undergone change and that she does not wear the hijab or follow the rules of Islam and that she feels safe and unpressured in her life in Australia.
·Stated that she was now married to her chosen partner and has a son. Her husband is also seeking protection due to threats he has received from his ex-girlfriend’s brother and this will indirectly also threaten her safety and her son’s safety.
On 4 April 2024 the applicant was invited to attend a hearing scheduled for 15 May 2024 to provide further detail of her claims.
The hearing
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 May 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of a Malay interpreter.
Where relevant, the applicant’s oral evidence is discussed in the Tribunal’s findings and reasons below.
Post-hearing submissions and evidence
The applicant did not provide the Tribunal with any post-hearing submissions or evidence.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)–(6) and ss 5K–5LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
The current DFAT report is the DFAT Country Information Report Malaysia dated 24 June 2024 (DFAT Report) and its relevant sections are referred to and discussed below.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether or not the applicant is owed protection under either the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), or under the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Applicant’s identity and country of nationality
The applicant stated in her application for a protection visa that she was born on [Date] in Negri Sembilan, Malaysia. The applicant has provided a certified copy of the biodata page of her Malaysian passport to the Department. There are no apparent concerns with the applicant’s identity. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia.
There is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest the applicant has citizenship of any other country, or that she has any right to enter and/or reside in any third country. Based on the information before it, the Tribunal is satisfied s 36(3) of the Act does not apply. The Tribunal is satisfied that Malaysia is her receiving country and has assessed her claims against that country.
The applicant’s evidence at the hearing
The applicant gave evidence that she was born in Negri Sembilan and is of Malay ethnicity and a Muslim. Her mother is a housewife and her father was [an occupation 1] until he passed away in December 2018. She has [siblings]. She is unsure of where they all live as some have already married and followed their husbands.
She believes her mother continues to live in Negri Sembilan but is not certain as she has not had contact with her mother since May 2019 when she returned to Malaysia for one month to settle her father’s estate with her siblings. This was also the last occasion she had contact with her siblings, except for [a] sister who she has ongoing contact with on [Social media], who works in a shop within a [workplace 1] in Negri Sembilan.
She attended primary and secondary school in Negri Sembilan. When she completed secondary school her sister’s friend helped her to get a job as [an occupation 2] in a [workplace 2] and she worked there for one to two years. She moved out of the family home and rented her own apartment as she wanted to live independently from her family.
Through her work at the [workplace 2] she met a Chinese Malaysian Christian man and developed a relationship with him. At the beginning stages of the relationship she kept it a secret from her family fearing their disapproval. When she did tell them about her relationship with a Christian her family members reacted angrily and said that she should be with a Muslim, not a non-Muslim. They refused to give her their blessing and she felt they disowned her from the family.
Her family could not accept that she wanted to remain with him, even though his family did not allow him to convert to Islam. Both she and her boyfriend wanted to continue the relationship. Her boyfriend wanted to stay Christian but was willing to convert to Islam to be with her but his family did not agree. His family were also angry and unhappy about the relationship. His family and her family never met to discuss the relationship and his family members never contacted her directly or pressured her to end the relationship. The applicant had already moved out of her family home since she started working at the [workplace 2] and so did not have much contact with her family at that time, but when she did they quarrelled about her relationship with a Christian man.
The applicant said at the time she did not care if her boyfriend converted to Islam or not but she wanted to be somewhere away from her family where they could be together. The Tribunal asked her whether she considered moving with her boyfriend to another part of Malaysia where he could convert to Islam and they could marry without the pressure of their families. The applicant said she did not move to another part of Malaysia as she did not want people looking down on her for being in a relationship with a non-Muslim, even if her boyfriend had converted to Islam so they could marry. She had heard that Australia is welcoming to people from all different religions and backgrounds and they planned to come to Australia.
She funded her visa and travel to Australia with her own savings. Her boyfriend did not have enough money to join her and so they agreed that she would first come to Australia and earn some money to send back to him so that he could join her later. This did not occur. She realised after around four months and after sending him money a couple of times that he was spending the money on other things and that he had another girlfriend and did not plan to join her in Australia. The Tribunal asked the applicant why in her written application form, she had implied that her boyfriend came with her to Australia saying in her completed form to the AAT dated 23 January 2024 ‘When we were here, our relationship didn’t last long and we fought and decided not to be together anymore.’ The applicant said that what was on the form was a mistake.
The Tribunal asked, if the plan was that they would marry and live together in Australia, why she decided to remain in Australia after her relationship with her boyfriend broke down. She said that by April or May 2018 the relationship with her boyfriend was already over but that if she returned to Malaysia she would have no one as her family members had already totally disowned her.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if she travelled alone to Australia. The applicant responded that she travelled to Australia with another man, who is her current husband, [Mr A]. The applicant said that she had initially intended to travel to Australia on her own but then met this person who was in the same situation as her and so she planned her travel with him.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain how this had occurred. She explained that her current husband was at that time an acquaintance who was part of a common friendship circle in Negri Sembilan. She had met him after she had finished school when she was already working and in the relationship with her Christian boyfriend, she believes sometime in 2016. She had told members of her social circle about the problems she was having being in a mixed-religion relationship with both families and believes that her friends must have also communicated that to [Mr A]. [Mr A] then approached her and asked her for her number as he had heard that she may have plans to travel to Australia. They were in regular telephone contact from that time. He also told her that he had a similar problem to her as he was in a relationship with a non-Muslim woman and also wanted to travel to Australia. They then applied for their visas, bought their tickets and travelled together to Australia.
The Tribunal asked the applicant where [Mr A] was from and the applicant said he was born in Palau Pinang and at some point had moved to Malacca and she was unsure when he had then moved to Negri Sembilan.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how her boyfriend felt about her travelling to Australia with someone else. The applicant responded that he had not known she was planning to travel with [Mr A], just that she was travelling to Australia. She added that her boyfriend had asked her to travel first to Australia and therefore was not concerned about her travel arrangements or who she travelled with. The Tribunal asked the applicant his name and date of birth. The applicant said his name was [Mr B] but she did not know his date of birth.
The Tribunal asked if [Mr A]’s girlfriend was travelling with them. The applicant said she did not travel with them. She came to Australia a few months later and was pregnant, but then suffered a miscarriage and this put a lot of pressure on the relationship with her now husband. They broke up and she returned to Malaysia.
The Tribunal asked what happened after she and her now husband arrived in Australia. The applicant said that as they were just acquaintances, they said goodbye to each other at the airport but exchanged telephone numbers so they could keep in touch if they ever needed to contact each other. She then stayed initially in backpackers’ accommodation and then moved to [Suburb 1] and then to [Suburb 2] to find a job on a [workplace 3]. She had some of her savings set aside to help her establish herself.
The Tribunal asked when the applicant next had contact with her now husband. She said she had no contact with him for several months after their arrival in Australia but then met him again by chance through a common [workplace 3] in [Suburb 3]. She did not know he was already working there when she started to work there in July 2018. She confirmed to the Tribunal that this was the first time she had contact with her now husband since they had arrived together in Australia.
The applicant started a relationship with [Mr A], who is a Muslim. They started living together as a couple in 2019 or 2020 and then married in November 2021. Their son was born in [Year].
The Tribunal put it to the applicant that in order to accept her claims regarding her earlier mixed-religion relationship and her narrative regarding the history of her relationship with her husband, it would have to be willing to accept a series of highly unlikely coincidences. In particular, it would require the Tribunal to accept that both her and her now husband had been only acquaintances when they travelled to Australia; they both had similar problematic mixed-religion relationships at the time and had separately planned to flee from Malaysia to Australia; at the same time, neither of them travelled with their girlfriend/boyfriend to Australia; that once in Australia they both went their separate ways and then by coincidence just happened to meet up again at the same place of employment, out of any place in Australia, without any prior contact. The applicant acknowledged that her case involved many coincidences however she maintained that she seeks help for protection of her family and her child in Australia.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain the circumstances around her decision to return to Malaysia in May 2019 given her evidence that her family had disowned her. The applicant said that her father had died in late 2018 and that her older sister had contacted her and said she needed to return to Malaysia in order to sign papers to settle her father’s inheritance. The Tribunal asked if she had inherited from her father’s estate on the same basis as her other siblings. She confirmed that his land inheritance was divided into five equal shares for all five children including herself.

The Tribunal asked if she had been fearful to return given the breakdown in relations with her family. The applicant responded that she was fearful but also her older sister was hoping that she would reach out to her mother to make amends and repair the poor relationships in the family. The Tribunal asked where she had stayed during her time in Malaysia and what contact she had had with all family members. The applicant said she had stayed with a friend. She had signed the inheritance papers and also met with her mother. She asked her mother if she was willing to accept her now and sought her forgiveness for any earlier mistakes regarding her earlier Christian boyfriend. However her mother refused to accept her and the applicant has not had contact with her since. The applicant said that the rest of her siblings have taken the same view as her mother except for her older sister.
The applicant added that she was particularly wary of her older brother, who she had never had a good relationship with, and who used to hit her if there were problems ‘because I am the child in the family who is hard-headed and don’t want to listen to him.’ She said she saw her brother when she was in Malaysia and he told her that he does not want to see her again. She said he stared at her in a way that made her fearful and she does not know what he might do to her if she were to return to Malaysia. After a month in Malaysia, she then returned to Australia and resumed her work at the [workplace 3] and her relationship with her now husband.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain why she feared her husband’s ex-girlfriend’s brother may harm her and her son. She said that the brother of her husband’s ex-girlfriend, from a powerful Christian family, has tried to blackmail him and paid someone to spy on them. The Tribunal asked why they would be motivated to do that, given that her husband’s relationship with his ex-girlfriend finished around six or seven years ago. The applicant explained that her husband had run away with his ex-girlfriend who was pregnant and that her family could not accept her husband had done this, and that even though her husband is no longer involved with his ex-girlfriend, her family are still in search of the applicant’s husband and by extension, the applicant and their son are also at risk.
The applicant explained that her husband’s ex-girlfriend did not travel with her and her now husband to Australia but rather travelled to Australia some months later and then stayed for around five months. During this time, the ex-girlfriend’s family were threatening the applicant’s husband and demanding that the ex-girlfriend return to Malaysia. She said that his ex-girlfriend’s father had once contacted her husband and told him that if he returned to Malaysia, he would look for him. The Tribunal asked, if she was so afraid of her husband’s ex-girlfriend’s family, why she returned to Malaysia in May 2019. She responded that at that time, she was not yet married to her husband and that his ex-girlfriend’s family did not know that she was in a relationship with her now husband, as she had given no indication on [Social media] of her relationship with her now husband and so there was no risk to her from them at that time.
The applicant said as far as she knows, there has been no recent contact between her husband and his ex-girlfriend’s family, including her brother but she said that this could occur at any time as her husband could be found by them via [Social media]. The Tribunal asked if her and her husband’s [Social media] accounts indicate that they are married and she confirmed that they do. The Tribunal asked why, if they were both so worried about the ex-girlfriend’s family finding and harming them, would they have this information accessible on their social media. The applicant responded that now she was worried because her marriage to her husband was openly declared on social media ‘and they will look for me and for our family.’ The Tribunal indicated that this did not make much sense and the applicant did not make further comment.
The applicant added that up until the current time, her husband’s family still ‘receive blackmail’ from the ex-girlfriend’s family and that as a consequence they have moved house within Negri Sembilan. The applicant gave examples of the ‘blackmail’ his husband’s family has experienced, including one occasion when the ex-girlfriend’s family members parked their car in front of her husband’s family’s house and ‘stared at them’ in a threatening way. She also said that on one occasion a cat died at her husband’s family’s house and that on another occasion a random cat walked into their family home, which his family had interpreted as black magic threats and which had made them feel afraid. The applicant also stated that her husband’s father had lost his stable government job due to the ex-girlfriend’s brother’s interference with his employer. The Tribunal asked the applicant on what basis she thought his job loss was related to the ex-girlfriend’s family and she said because he worked in a good place and there was no other explanation for why he suddenly lost his job.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether her fear of her husband’s ex-girlfriend’s family was now the main reason why she feared returning to Malaysia, and she confirmed it was. The Tribunal asked the applicant if her husband’s family have reported his ex-girlfriend’s brother or other family members to the police. She said they had made a case but the case is lost and she does not know what happened to the case and she was not aware of any investigation. She also said that the ex-girlfriend’s brother is a person of some stature and that he would be able to bribe the police.
The Tribunal asked the applicant on what basis the ex-girlfriend’s family was considered to be of power or of stature. She replied that the family is rich and she thinks they are also well-connected although she did not know any details. ‘I do not know exactly who he is but I know he was very ashamed about his sister’s situation.’ The applicant did not know the ex-girlfriend’s father’s name or brother’s name but said that the brother’s nickname is ‘[Nickname]’.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if there were any other reasons why she feared returning to Malaysia, especially as she had earlier mentioned in her application that she was feeling confused about her identity and religious practices. The applicant explained that her religious beliefs had undergone some change because since being with her Christian boyfriend, she had ‘lost my direction with my religion and lifestyle. I do not follow Islam’s teachings for example, and I removed my hijab.’ The applicant confirmed that she continues to identify as a Muslim.
The applicant also said that she had experienced some confusion about her gender identity since being in Australia and that she had once had feelings for a woman prior to marrying her husband. The Tribunal asked if she had ever acted upon her feelings and she said she had not, neither of them had, but she had experienced attraction towards her female friend for some time but then she had become closer to her husband and their relationship became more serious and she decided to marry him and so she ‘did not go down the path of a relationship with the woman because of this.’
The Tribunal asked the applicant how she thought these issues would impact upon her if she returned to Malaysia. The applicant responded ‘I am now married. So it would be unlikely that I would fall for another female, but I know for a fact that if this were to happen it would be unlawful for us to be in this situation.’ She further added ‘I am now married to my husband and do not think in the future that I will be exploring my feelings of attraction for another woman. If everything is ok with me and my husband and we do not have disagreements, then nothing will happen.’
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is owed protection under either the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), or under the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
I have carefully considered the applicant’s claims and the materials she provided to the Tribunal. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Credibility of applicant’s evidence
In determining whether an applicant is entitled to protection in Australia the Tribunal must first make findings of fact on the claims he or she has made. This may involve an assessment of the applicant’s credibility. In doing so, the Tribunal is aware of the need and importance of being sensitive to the difficulties asylum seekers often face. Accordingly, the Tribunal notes that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible, but unable to substantiate all of their claims[1] and that a reasonable approach must be adopted when making a finding in relation to an applicant’s credibility.[2]
[1] The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 1992 at [196].
[2] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo Wei Rong and Pan Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445 per Foster J at 482.
On the other hand, and as was clearly explained to the applicant, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all claims made by an applicant. In addition, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been established. Nor is the Tribunal obliged to accept claims that are inconsistent with the independent evidence regarding the situation in the applicant’s country of nationality or claims that involve such unlikely coincidence that the claims are implausible.
Findings regarding mixed-religion relationship
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that she was in a mixed-religion relationship with a Christian man and that tensions with both their families and inability to legally marry in Malaysia, was the reason why she left Malaysia. The Tribunal makes this finding based on consideration of a combination of factors, which were discussed with the applicant at the hearing including:
·The applicant’s account of her relationship with her ex-boyfriend including how it developed and how each family responded to their relationship and her knowledge of her ex-boyfriend’s personal and family details, including his age, were vague and lacked detail.
·The applicant’s evidence that she was in a genuine relationship and intended for her boyfriend to join her in Australia, but that she did not tell her boyfriend the details of her planned travel to Australia, including that she planned to travel to Australia with a male acquaintance. The reason given by the applicant for this, that her boyfriend had asked her to travel first to Australia and so ‘did not pay particular attention to how I get here or with who’, was unconvincing.
·The applicant’s statement on her written completed form to the AAT dated 23 January 2024 said ‘When we were here, our relationship didn’t last long and we fought and decided not to be together anymore,’ whereas the applicant’s evidence at the hearing was that her boyfriend had never travelled with her to Australia but rather she had travelled with a male acquaintance. The applicant’s response to this inconsistency, that it was a mistake on the form, was unpersuasive and suggested that her story had changed.
·The applicant’s evidence of the history of when she first met and became acquainted with her now husband, how they had planned their travel together to Australia and that he remained only an acquaintance at the time they came to Australia, requires acceptance of multiple coincidences all occurring, which the Tribunal does not accept occurred, including that:
oBoth she and her now husband happened to have similar mixed-religion relationship difficulties at that time;
oBoth she and her now husband independently planned to come to Australia so they could pursue their mixed-religion relationships without family pressure or legal hindrance;
oNeither she nor her now husband travelled to Australia with either of their mixed-religion partners despite them both leaving Malaysia for the purpose of continuing these relationships;
oDespite the applicant and her now husband going their separate ways upon arrival in Australia and having no further contact with each other, they became reacquainted by chance at the same place of employment around eight months after they arrived in Australia;
oAt that time of their reacquaintance, they had both recently broken up with their former mixed-religion partners and were thus both ‘free’ to commence their own relationship.
Based on the Tribunal’s finding above, that the applicant did not leave Malaysia due to her desire to pursue a mixed-religion relationship without legal or family pressure, it also follows that the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has irreconcilable differences with her own family due to having entered a mixed-religion relationship against their wishes. If the applicant has any dispute with her family, it is for other reasons. Given the Tribunal’s finding that the applicant did not have a mixed-religion relationship and did not have a falling out with her family for this reason, it follows that the Tribunal finds that she faces no real chance of serious harm or risk of significant harm for this reason upon her return to Malaysia.
Nonetheless, the Tribunal has gone on to consider ‘what if I am wrong’ and whether the applicant may face a real chance of serious harm if she did in fact have a mixed-religion relationship and a major falling out with her family for this reason, as she claimed. The Tribunal finds that this would not alter the Tribunal’s overall finding that the applicant faces no real chance of serious harm or real risk of significant harm due to having had a mixed-religion relationship in the past, or any ongoing risk of harm posed by the applicant’s family in the foreseeable future:
·On the applicant’s evidence, the mixed-religion relationship with her boyfriend ended in early 2018 and since that time she has had not further contact with him or his family and she has no subjective fear of harm in Malaysia from her ex-boyfriend or his family due to this previous relationship.
·The applicant’s evidence is that all members of her own family continue to bear a grudge against her for having entered a mixed-religion relationship against the will of her family and for having left Malaysia to pursue this relationship. However, since leaving Malaysia in late 2017 and despite having met with various family members during a one-month visit to Malaysia, the applicant’s evidence is that while she was unable to reconcile with her mother and other relatives, she was not harmed by any of them and did not feel threatened by any of them.
·The one exception relates to her brother who told her during her visit that ‘he does not want to see my face again.’ The Tribunal asked the applicant to clarify whether she had any reason to believe that he may be motivated to harm her in the future in Malaysia and the applicant said ‘the way he stared at me made me fearful, I do not know what he would do.’ The applicant shared further context that her relationship with her brother had never been good: ‘If there are any problems he would usually hit me, because I am the one child in the family who is hard-headed and did not want to stay.’
·While the Tribunal accepts that her brother may have hit her when she was a child and living together in her parents’ house, her evidence was that no members of her family had previously threatened or beaten her even in the peak of family tensions, after she commenced the mixed-religion relationship with her boyfriend and prior to her leaving Malaysia. The lack of any violence or threats used by the applicant’s brother against the applicant at that time, is an indication he would be even less motivated to harm her some six years later, especially as she has subsequently married a Muslim Malay man, which accords with her family’s wishes. While the Tribunal is willing to accept that the applicant has not reconciled with her brother, it is not satisfied that him telling her in 2019 that he does not want to see her, indicates that he poses a real chance or real risk of harm to her upon return to Malaysia now. The Tribunal also finds that while the applicant has not and may not reconcile with her mother or other members of her family, this does not place her at a real chance or real risk of facing serious or significant harm by any of her own family members.
Findings regarding applicant’s fear of harm from husband’s ex-girlfriend’s family
The applicant’s evidence is that the main reason she now fears returning to Malaysia is that her husband’s ex-girlfriend’s family (and brother in particular), is well-connected and powerful and that they continue to pose a threat to her husband due to his previous mixed-religion relationship with their daughter/sister around six years ago. The applicant believes that she (and her son) are also at risk from the ex-girlfriend’s family, due to being immediate family members of her husband.
The Tribunal notes that the onus is on the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out and that a decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for him or her. It is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of the claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide enough evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist in specifying any particulars of the claim, or to establish or assist in establishing the claim.[3] Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant.[4]
[3] See s 5AAA of the Act.
[4] MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596; Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191; Prasad v
The Tribunal finds that the applicant has not provided sufficient detail or evidence to establish the relevant facts in support of her claim that she faces a threat from her husband’s ex-girlfriend’s family. The Tribunal does not find that anxiety, memory difficulties from the lapse of time or cultural sensitivities account for the lack of detail and specificity in the applicant’s claim and evidence.
The Tribunal is not satisfied based on the evidence before it that the applicant’s husband had a mixed-religion relationship with a Christian woman in Malaysia and sought to come to Australia so he could pursue a relationship with her. To accept this claim, the Tribunal would need to accept the same series of coincidences that it was unwilling to accept in relation to the applicant’s claimed mixed-religion relationship, regarding the applicant’s evidence that her and her now husband both sought to come to Australia to pursue mixed-religion relationships and were only acquaintances until around July 2018.
Having found that the applicant’s husband was not previously in a mixed-religion relationship, it therefore follows that the Tribunal finds:
·The applicant’s husband was not previously pursued by his ex-girlfriend’s family due to a sense of shame that the applicant’s husband brought to the ex-girlfriend’s family by having had a relationship with their daughter/sister.
·The applicant’s husband did not receive a threatening phone call from his ex-girlfriend’s brother.
·The applicant’s husband’s family have not been threatened by the ex-girlfriend’s family.
·There is no future risk of any harm to the applicant, her husband or their child from the ex-girlfriend’s family.

Nonetheless, the Tribunal has gone on to consider ‘what if I am wrong’ and whether the applicant may face a real chance of serious harm if the applicant’s husband did in fact have a mixed-religion relationship as claimed. The Tribunal finds that this would not alter the Tribunal’s overall finding that the applicant faces no real chance of serious harm due to any risk posed by the applicant’s husband’s ex-girlfriend’s family. The Tribunal makes this finding for a combination of further reasons including:
·The applicant’s evidence about the ex-girlfriend’s family and the reasons why they continued to pose a threat to her husband or to her lacked detail. The applicant did not know the ex-girlfriend’s family name, or the names of the ex-girlfriend’s father or the brother beyond saying that his nickname was ‘[Nickname]’. The applicant was unable to provide any background information about the nature of the family’s political or other connections or explanation regarding why the ex-girlfriend’s family was particularly powerful, beyond describing them as rich and therefore able to bribe police. The Tribunal considers that if the ex-girlfriend’s family posed a genuine threat to the applicant’s husband and to the applicant, the applicant would have more knowledge about their names, backgrounds and would be able to describe in more detail why they posed a threat.
·The applicant’s evidence is there has been no contact from the ex-girlfriend’s family to the applicant’s husband, except for one phone call proximate to the time when his ex-girlfriend was in Australia in around 2018. Even if the Tribunal is willing to accept that this threatening phone call occurred at that time, the applicant’s evidence is that in the subsequent six years in Australia, there has been no other contact from the ex-girlfriend’s family members despite the applicant and the applicant’s husband being readily contactable via [Social media] or other means. The Tribunal therefore finds a lack of evidence of any continuing motivation on the part of the ex-girlfriend’s family, to harm the applicant’s husband, and even less so, the applicant and her son.
·The applicant’s evidence regarding the ex-girlfriend’s family’s pursuit of the applicant’s husband’s family in Negri Sembilan also lacked detail, internal logic and substantiation. The descriptions of the ‘blackmail’ allegedly experienced by his family were again vague and based on assertions of seemingly unrelated events being connected, such as the girlfriend’s family being somehow involved in the loss of the applicant’s father-in-law’s job, or the death or presence of a cat being interpreted as signs of black magic or other superstitious beliefs being interpreted as threats from the ex-girlfriend’s family.
·The applicant’s evidence was that the ex-girlfriend’s family members had been seen sitting in a car outside her husband’s family house, which she interpreted to be a threat, but clarified that no actual verbal or other threat was made by them or any physical harm done to the applicant’s husband’s family, and therefore this is not an indication of any continuing motivation on the part of the ex-girlfriend’s family, to harm the applicant’s husband’s family.
For these reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance or real risk posed by the applicant’s husband’s ex-girlfriend’s family to the applicant’s husband and therefore finds there is also no real chance or real risk that she or her child face a real chance of serious or significant harm for this reason.
Applicant’s religious and gender identity claims
Towards the end of the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant to clarify what she had meant in relation to the bold sections of text below, in the applicant’s response to outreach from the Tribunal, and which was the first time the applicant had raised religious or other more general ‘changing identity’ claims. The applicant stated that:
When we were here, our relationship didn't last long and we fought and decided not to be together anymore. Because of that I experienced emotional stress until I was willing not to wear the hijab and did not follow the rules of Islam. There's a time I felt confusion of identity and experienced a confusion of life. I took long time to heal myself to be a better person as I chose to live in Australia as this country makes me feel safe and peaceful. So I can be who I really am without stress and pressured by others.
As set out in the earlier section regarding the applicant’s evidence at the hearing, the applicant claimed that prior to her marriage to her husband, she had gone through a period where she felt confused about her faith, did not wear her hijab and developed feelings of attraction towards a woman.
The Tribunal notes that s 423A of the Act requires the Tribunal to draw an unfavourable inference as to the credibility of an applicant’s claim or evidence where an applicant raises a claim or presents evidence that was not put forward before the primary decision was made, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not have a reasonable explanation as to why the claim was not raised or evidence presented before the primary decision.
Notwithstanding the reservations the Tribunal has expressed in relation to its assessment of the credibility of some of the applicant’s earlier claims, it is satisfied that the delay in the applicant putting forward these new claims is reasonable in the circumstances. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has been unrepresented throughout her protection visa application process and that she was not invited by the Department to an interview. Had she had legal assistance and been interviewed by the Department, it would have made it easier for her to articulate all of her claims prior to the primary decision being made.
The Tribunal notes that the Department refused the applicant’s case in October 2018, which according to the applicant’s evidence likely overlapped with the period of her life when she claims she was questioning her religious identity and ‘experienced a confusion of life.’ In addition, the Tribunal acknowledges that her new claims regarding religious and gender identity are sensitive and amongst those often the most difficult for applicants to disclose taking into consideration the impact cultural and societal norms can have on their behaviour. Taking all these factors into consideration, no adverse inference is drawn by the Tribunal in relation to the applicant’s delay and the limited way in which she has put forward these claims prior to the hearing.
While the Tribunal has not accepted the applicant’s earlier claim that she came to Australia to escape the difficulties associated with a mixed-religion relationship, it is still willing to accept her evidence that experiencing life in a more relaxed, tolerant and less religious environment in Australia caused her to question her religious beliefs and gender identity.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claim that she stopped regularly wearing her hijab and observing her religion as she previously had. It also accepts that she experienced a period of ‘identity confusion’ including feelings of attraction for a female friend and that neither the applicant nor her friend acted upon these feelings. It also accepts the applicant’s evidence that she then became increasingly involved with her now husband, a Malay Muslim man, and started living with him in 2019 or 2020, leading up to their marriage in November 2021 and the birth of their son in 2022.
Based on the applicant’s evidence, she is happy in her marriage and has reverted to observation of her Muslim faith, including wearing her hijab, as she did at her hearing. The applicant’s evidence is that her main fear of returning to Malaysia is due to the claim that she is at risk from her husband’s ex-girlfriend’s family, and she has not disclosed any subjective fear of harm in Malaysia due to practice of her Muslim faith. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm for reason of her religious beliefs or expression of her religious identity.
Regarding the period in which the applicant had feelings of attraction towards a female friend, the applicant’s evidence is that she has steered her life in a different direction now and she does not anticipate that she would ‘fall for another female’ or consider pursuing future relationships with women. As stated by the applicant:
I am now married. So it would be unlikely that I would fall for another female, but I know for a fact that if this were to happen it would be unlawful for us to be in this situation.
And:
I am now married to my husband and do not think in the future that I will be exploring my feelings of attraction for another woman. If everything is ok with me and my husband and we do not have disagreements, then nothing will happen.
The Tribunal is mindful of the substantial country information indicating that in the current legal, political, social and cultural context in Malaysia, many Malaysians who are gay, lesbian or transgender may be at risk of treatment which could amount to persecution.[5] However, the applicant’s evidence reveals no subjective fear on her part of returning to Malaysia for reason of her gender identity. In addition, based on her self-described circumstances, the Tribunal finds there is also no objective real chance or real risk of her becoming at risk due to her gender identity in the foreseeable future. The applicant’s evidence is that she is happy in her marriage and has no intention to explore any future feelings of attraction she may have for women. Therefore the Tribunal concludes that any risks or difficulties the applicant could potentially face in Malaysia due to expressions of her gender identity are speculative, remote and not foreseeable. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm for reason of her gender identity.
[5] See DFAT Country Information Report Malaysia, 24 June 2024 [3.132]–[3.134], [3.138], [3.148]; SUARAM, Malaysia Human Rights Report 2023, Chapter 11 ‘Human Rights Violations Against LGBTQ+ Persons’, p165–179, available at SUARAM Malaysia Human Rights Report 2023 | Human Rights Reports.
Is the applicant owed complementary protection?
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
In considering whether there is a ‘real risk’ that the applicant will suffer ‘significant harm’, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her being removed from Australia to Malaysia, the Tribunal has noted that in MIAC v SZQRB, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in relation to the ‘refugee’ criterion.[6] The Tribunal has already found that the applicant does not face a real chance of treatment amounting to serious harm or persecution in relation to the refugee criterion, and finds that she similarly does not face a ‘real risk’ of ‘significant harm’ under the complementary protection criterion for any of those reasons including any previous mixed-religion relationship, any continuing dispute with her family, any threat posed by her husband’s ex-girlfriend’s family, or due to expression of her religious or gender identity.
[6] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33 (Lander, Besanko, Gordon, Flick and Jagot JJ, 20 March 2013) per Lander and Gordon JJ at [246], Besanko and Jagot JJ at [297] and Flick J at [342].
At no stage did the applicant advance any other reason in her claims that she is owed Australia’s protection obligations. The Tribunal therefore finds there are no more residual claims, including based on the applicant’s accepted circumstances, to be considered.
Having regard to all the circumstances and findings above, considered individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy any of the criteria in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Carolyn Graydon
Member
ATTACHMENT – Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169–70.

[2024] AATA 4243

9 July 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Remedies