1705689 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a national of Malaysia. The applicant claimed to be a Shia Muslim who feared physical and mental harm from Sunni Muslims and the authorities in Malaysia due to the government's alleged banning of Shia activities. The delegate refused the visa, finding that discrimination or harassment of Shia Muslims in Malaysia did not rise to a level that would create an objectively well-founded fear of persecution, and that the Malaysian state could provide adequate protection. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims in light of country information and the applicant's own evidence.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims, considering the country information regarding the treatment of Shia Muslims in Malaysia, and determining if the Malaysian state was willing and able to provide protection. A significant aspect of the assessment involved the Tribunal's notification to the applicant that his answers to certain questions on his application form were substantially identical to those of other asylum seekers residing at the same address, raising concerns about the genuineness of his claims.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's claims lacked credibility due to the identical wording of his responses to those of other applicants residing at the same address, which suggested his claims may not have been genuinely held. The Tribunal noted that if an applicant's claims are not credible, it is not required to proceed to assess other aspects of their claims, such as whether the fear of harm was objectively well-founded. The Tribunal also considered the delegate's findings, which were supported by the available country information, that the risk of persecution for Shia Muslims in Malaysia did not reach the threshold for protection obligations and that the Malaysian state could offer adequate protection.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate to refuse the grant of a Protection visa.