1705038 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Malaysian national, sought a protection visa on the basis of a fear of persecution in Malaysia due to his adherence to Shia Islam. The applicant claimed that the Malaysian government had declared Shia Islam illegal, that he had been warned by the Islamic department to abandon his beliefs, and that he had received death threats from the Wahabi faction. He asserted that Malaysia only accepted practitioners of Ahli Sunni Islam and that he would face arrest, imprisonment, and threats if returned.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Malaysia under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims, considering inconsistencies between his written application and his oral evidence, and to determine if effective protection measures were available to him in Malaysia.

The Tribunal found significant inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence. At the hearing, the applicant stated he did not remember filling out his protection visa application because a friend, identified as '[Mr A]', had assisted him. He claimed '[Mr A]' helped him because they were "on the same boat," which he explained meant they shared the same religion. However, he also stated that '[Mr A]' had interpreted the application to him in Malay, but he did not remember its contents, despite the application stating he received no assistance. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's written claims detailed a fear of persecution for practicing Shia Islam, including threats from the Islamic department and Wahabi faction, and the illegality of Shia practice in Malaysia. However, the applicant's oral evidence regarding the assistance he received in completing his application and his understanding of its contents raised serious credibility issues. The Tribunal did not find that the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

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