1500288 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to fear harm upon return to Malaysia due to his Chinese ethnic extraction. The applicant asserted that he had experienced official discrimination against Chinese people in Malaysia, which had impacted his family's business. He further alleged that local Muslims harboured animosity towards his family, citing an incident where his shop was ransacked after rejecting a business offer, and that the Malaysian police failed to investigate these matters. The applicant also claimed that Malaysian authorities would not protect Chinese individuals against Muslims and that returning to Malaysia would subject him and his family to degrading treatment due to official government policy. Additionally, he raised concerns about the registration of his Australian-born children and the associated costs and delays in accessing education and government services.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, specifically whether he was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims regarding fear of harm and the availability of protection from the Malaysian authorities. The Tribunal was also obliged to consider relevant policy guidelines and country information assessments prepared by government departments, as mandated by Ministerial Direction No. 56.

The Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia owed protection obligations. In reaching this decision, the Tribunal implicitly found that the applicant's claims of fear of harm and lack of protection from Malaysian authorities were not sufficiently substantiated to meet the threshold for a protection visa. Consequently, the applicant failed to satisfy the criterion in section 36(2)(aa), and by extension, the criteria in sections 36(2)(b) and (c).

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