1617804 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an applicant for a protection visa. The applicant, a Malaysian national, claimed a well-founded fear of persecution in Malaysia due to his relationship with a woman significantly older than him, which contravened Islamic social mores. He asserted that if returned, their families would force them into arranged marriages, and that they could not relocate within Malaysia due to financial instability and ongoing family confrontation. The applicant also indicated that Malaysian police and courts could offer protection.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under s.5J of the Migration Act 1958, or, alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal considered policy guidelines and country information assessments relevant to protection status determination.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles of assessing credibility in protection claims, noting that an applicant bears the onus of providing sufficient detail to establish the relevant facts and that allegations are not to be accepted uncritically. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. Specifically, the Tribunal noted the applicant’s indication that he had not been harmed in Malaysia and that police and courts could offer protection. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for complementary protection, as there were no substantial grounds to believe he would suffer significant harm upon removal to Malaysia.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.