1606495 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant initially claimed to be a political activist and participant in the Bersih 3.0 rally, alleging police identification, a warrant for his arrest, and physical assault. However, at the hearing, the applicant presented entirely different claims, stating he was a guarantor for his brother's loan and was being threatened by loan sharks and gangsters, putting him and his family at risk. The Tribunal determined the applicant's identity as Malaysian and assessed his claims against Malaysia as his country of reference for both Refugee Convention and complementary protection purposes, finding he could not access a third country.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were to assess the applicant's credibility, given the significant divergence between his application claims and his testimony at the hearing, and to determine whether he met the criteria for a protection visa, either under the Refugee Convention or through complementary protection. This involved considering whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia. The Tribunal was required to make findings of fact based on the evidence presented, while acknowledging the difficulties asylum seekers may face in substantiating their claims.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied established principles regarding the assessment of credibility in protection visa claims. It noted that mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or well-foundedness, and that claims must be supported by sufficient detail. The Tribunal highlighted that it is not obliged to accept all allegations uncritically and that an applicant bears the responsibility for providing the necessary facts. The Tribunal also considered the provisions for complementary protection, which allow for a visa grant if there are substantial grounds for believing a real risk of significant harm exists upon removal. The Tribunal found that the applicant's inability to provide a coherent explanation for the discrepancy between his application and hearing claims, particularly when other personal details in the application were confirmed as correct, undermined his credibility.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. This outcome was based on the Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's credibility, finding that his inconsistent claims and lack of a satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies meant he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal therefore found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.