1833791 (Refugee)

The applicants, who are nationals of Malaysia, sought review of decisions by the delegate of the Minister to refuse their applications for protection visas. The applicants claimed they departed Malaysia due to its economic instability, corruption, and a perceived "hopeless government," expressing concerns about a drop in education levels, unemployment, racism, and religious issues. They stated they were not involved in political activities and did not report any personal harm or discrimination.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the definition of a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), by having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or whether they met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This latter criterion requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, there is a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims in light of the relevant legislative provisions and country information. It was noted that the applicants' claims focused on general economic and political instability in Malaysia, rather than specific incidents of harm or discrimination directed at them personally. The applicants themselves stated that "nothing will happen" if they are returned to Malaysia, though they expressed feelings of gloom and a sense of wasted lives. The Tribunal found that the applicants had not established a well-founded fear of persecution, nor had they demonstrated substantial grounds for believing they would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "significant harm" and the circumstances under which a person is taken not to face a real risk of such harm, including the availability of effective protection measures and the possibility of reasonable relocation within the receiving country.

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions of the delegate not to grant the applicants protection visas, as neither the refugee criterion nor the complementary protection criterion was met. Consequently, the applicants also did not meet the family unit criteria under sections 36(2)(b) or 36(2)(c) of the Act.