2005410 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for protection visas by two applicants, who did not attend the hearing before the Tribunal. The first applicant claimed to be a Chinese Malaysian Christian, and the second applicant claimed to be ethnic Malaysian and Muslim. The first applicant alleged that Malaysia was a racist country that only protected Muslims, and that upon return, she would be forced to become Muslim, arrested, brainwashed, and abused. She also claimed that Sabah was unsafe due to terrorism. The second applicant relied on the first applicant's claims.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they were refugees or faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia to Malaysia, as required by sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958. This involved assessing the first applicant's fears of harm based on her race, religion, and relationship with a Muslim man, and considering the availability of protection in Malaysia.

The Tribunal considered the claims made by the first applicant, noting that she had made no attempt to progress her application and that the second applicant had requested a decision be made without a hearing. The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to establish the relevant facts of the first applicant's case. It also took into account relevant guidelines and country information. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicants, concluding that they did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.