1836252 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review by a Malaysian national of a delegate's decision to refuse her protection visa. The applicant had sought to remain and work in Australia, citing political and economic issues in Malaysia as the reason for her departure and her inability to secure employment upon return. The delegate had refused the visa, finding that the economic hardship the applicant might suffer did not constitute serious or significant harm. The applicant subsequently applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of this decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. This involved considering the meaning of "significant harm" as defined in the relevant legislative provisions and assessing the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84 and associated guidelines.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that she was a Christian, although her application had stated she was Buddhist. Despite this, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal reasoned that the economic climate in Malaysia affected everyone and that the economic hardship the applicant might face upon return did not amount to serious or significant harm. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had provided limited information about her background and employment history in Malaysia, and that she had indicated her claims had "little substance" in relation to the legislative provisions. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.