1704496 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Malaysian citizen, sought a protection visa in Australia, claiming he feared imprisonment upon return to Malaysia due to his membership in Bersih, a group advocating for clean and fair elections. The applicant alleged that the Malaysian Minister of Home Affairs had stated that dissatisfied citizens should leave the country, and that many group members had been imprisoned. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) (refugee criterion) or section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection criterion) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, or if there was a real risk of significant harm upon his return to Malaysia. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims, particularly in light of information that three other applicants had lodged identical claims. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant could reasonably relocate within Malaysia or obtain protection from Malaysian authorities, and whether any risk he faced was general to the population or specific to him.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not responded to a section 424A letter inviting comment on information before the Tribunal, which included the identical claims from other applicants. This information suggested that the applicant's claims might not be truthful, and that he might not face a real risk of persecution or significant harm. The Tribunal also observed that the applicant did not attend the hearing. Applying the principles of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Tribunal considered relevant guidelines and country information. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established that he met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal found no suggestion that the applicant satisfied the criteria as a member of the same family unit as a person who holds a protection visa.