1829457 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a protection visa to an applicant from Malaysia. The applicant claimed to fear harm upon return to Malaysia due to a past relationship with a Christian partner, which was opposed by her family and legally prohibited unless her partner converted. She also stated that her religious identity had changed since arriving in Australia, and she was now in a same-sex relationship with a new partner and had a son. Her current partner was also seeking protection due to threats from his ex-girlfriend's brother, which the applicant argued would indirectly endanger her and their son.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under either section 36(2)(a) (the refugee criterion) or section 36(2)(aa) (the complementary protection criterion) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, she would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims were vague, inconsistent, and unconvincing. While the delegate had tentatively accepted the applicant might belong to a particular social group (people in mixed-religion relationships), the Tribunal concluded that any risk of family or social pressure or ostracism would not amount to serious harm, and that state protection was available in Malaysia. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution under the refugee criterion, nor had she demonstrated a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's current circumstances, including her changed religious practice and new relationship, were not sufficiently substantiated to establish a claim for protection.

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