1908090 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Malaysian national. The applicant, who had previously converted from Christianity to Islam and married a Muslim woman, later divorced and entered into a new relationship with a Christian woman. He claimed that if returned to Malaysia, he would face serious harm due to his Christian faith not being officially recognised, preventing his marriage to his current partner and exposing him to societal discrimination and threats of physical harm. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for being a refugee under the Act.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, and also assessed his claim under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa). This involved examining the risk of significant harm upon removal to Malaysia, taking into account Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). The central legal issue was whether the applicant's circumstances, including his religious conversion history and his relationship with a Christian woman, placed him at a real risk of suffering significant harm in Malaysia.

The Tribunal's reasoning was informed by DFAT country information which indicated that while some Malaysians convert from Islam, the right to revert to Christianity was confirmed by the High Court in 2016. DFAT assessed that Christians are generally not at risk of societal discrimination, except for those engaged in preaching or promoting Christianity, which the applicant did not appear to be doing. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had lived in Malaysia for nine years prior to coming to Australia, and had experienced some harassment from co-workers for not being an observant Muslim, but had lived with his current partner for two years without harm before migrating. Based on this information, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.