1512705 (Refugee)

This matter concerns the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's review of a protection visa application lodged by a primary applicant and his wife, the secondary applicant. The applicants, who claim to be Malaysian nationals of Chinese Malay ethnicity and Buddhists, asserted they left Malaysia due to religious persecution by Muslims, which interfered with their family business and personal freedom. They also claimed the Malaysian government was corrupt and favoured Malays. The applicants did not attend the hearing scheduled by the Tribunal to present oral evidence or provide submissions in support of their claims.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was the credibility of the applicants' claims for protection. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants had established a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia, considering their failure to attend the hearing and provide supporting evidence. This involved assessing whether their claims were plausible and consistent with available country information, and whether any lack of evidence could be reasonably explained.

The Tribunal reasoned that while a liberal approach is generally required in assessing refugee claims, and applicants who are otherwise credible should be given the benefit of the doubt, a decision-maker is not obliged to accept all allegations uncritically. The Tribunal noted that it was not required to have rebutting evidence to reject an applicant's assertions, nor to accept claims inconsistent with independent country information. Given the applicants' failure to attend the hearing or provide any submissions, the Tribunal concluded that it could not assess the credibility of their claims. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.