1900132 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by two Malaysian citizens. The applicants claimed a well-founded fear of returning to Malaysia due to favouritism, the second applicant's disability which they asserted would prevent employment, and the second applicant's conversion from Catholicism to Islam. The first applicant had already returned to Malaysia. The case was heard by Wayne Pennell.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm upon return to Malaysia, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations. Specifically, the court considered the claims relating to economic hardship due to disability and the implications of religious conversion.

The court found that the applicants had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. The claim regarding the second applicant's disability and its impact on employment prospects was not substantiated with sufficient evidence to demonstrate a real risk of significant harm. Furthermore, the claim concerning religious conversion was not raised with the original decision-maker and was not considered to be a basis for a well-founded fear in this instance. The court noted that the first applicant had returned to Malaysia without experiencing harm.

Consequently, the court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicants did not meet the criteria for a Protection visa.