1705825 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by an individual who claimed to have left Malaysia due to political involvement and subsequent threats from politicians. The applicant's account of his involvement, including participation in a Bersih demonstration, evolved during the proceedings, with inconsistencies between his written statement and his oral evidence.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he held a genuine fear of persecution based on his political opinion or membership in a particular social group, and whether he faced a real chance of serious harm upon return to Malaysia. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims regarding political affiliation, participation in protests, and the risk of adverse government action. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant would face significant harm as a consequence of being removed from Australia.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence regarding his political involvement was inconsistent and unreliable, noting discrepancies between his written claims and his unprompted testimony at the hearing, where new claims were introduced. The Tribunal also found that the applicant's description of the Bersih 2015 protests did not align with available country information, which suggested the protests were peaceful. Consequently, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had joined a political party, received threats, attended demonstrations, or held an anti-government political opinion consistent with the Bersih ideology. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm, including arrest or imprisonment, for reasons of his alleged political involvement. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's concerns about employment, but found no evidence to suggest he would be denied employment commensurate with his experience, and therefore no refugee-related reason for being denied employment.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and also did not meet the alternative criterion under s.36(2)(aa), as it was not satisfied that he would suffer significant harm upon return to Malaysia. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.