1516278 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, a national of Malaysia, claimed he left his country due to ongoing domestic violence perpetrated by his father, who he feared would kill him if he returned. The applicant also stated that authorities in Malaysia had not provided him with assistance when he sought help. The delegate had refused the visa, noting the applicant’s failure to attend an interview and concluding that it was implausible his father could locate him anywhere in Malaysia, and that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine fear of significant harm.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or alternatively, whether Australia had protection obligations towards him under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal. This involved assessing the applicant's claims of harm, the availability of protection in Malaysia, and whether any risk of harm was faced by the population generally or by the applicant personally.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, including his statements about his father's violence and his unsuccessful attempts to seek help from authorities and relocate. It also considered country information and the delegate's reasoning. The Tribunal found that the applicant was a national of Malaysia and that Malaysia was his receiving country. However, it concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient detail or supporting documentation, and had not taken the opportunity to attend an interview to elaborate on his claims. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated that he could not relocate within Malaysia to an area where he would not face significant harm, nor that he could not obtain protection from Malaysian authorities.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.