1605834 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by the first, second, and third applicants against the decision of the Tribunal not to grant them protection visas. The applicants, a family from Kuala Lumpur, claimed they had fled Malaysia due to the first applicant's involvement as a coordinator for BERSIH, a coalition advocating for electoral reform, and his subsequent fear of arrest and harm from the Malaysian authorities. The first applicant also made a late claim of involvement with the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS).

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the applicants' claims and whether it had correctly applied the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) concerning the criteria for a protection visa, including the definition of a well-founded fear of persecution and the complementary protection criterion. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Tribunal’s adverse credibility findings regarding the first applicant's involvement with BERSIH and PAS were justified, and if these findings meant the applicants did not face a real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on significant inconsistencies and a lack of detail in the first applicant's oral evidence compared to his written claims, as well as his limited knowledge of the organisations he claimed to be involved with. These credibility concerns led the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant had not been harmed or sought by the police due to his alleged political activities. The Tribunal also found the delay in applying for protection unpersuasive. Despite the first applicant's wife testifying to his involvement with BERSIH, the Tribunal found her evidence did not overcome the serious credibility issues with the applicant's claims. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm, and therefore did not meet the criteria for a protection visa.

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