1706896 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a protection visa application made by a Malaysian national. The applicant claimed to have fled Malaysia due to fears of arrest and imprisonment as part of the "Bersih group," alleging persecution for his participation in the Bersih 4.0 rally and subsequent blacklisting. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that, upon removal to Malaysia, he faced a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of country information and the evidence presented. The applicant stated he participated in the Bersih 4.0 rally on 29 August 2015, was arrested, detained for two days, and subsequently "blacklisted," preventing him from working. However, the Tribunal found inconsistencies in the applicant's account. Country information indicated the rally was peaceful and did not result in widespread arrests or the use of force by police. Furthermore, the applicant claimed to have been working for three months prior to his departure from Malaysia, obtained a passport and visa, and exited the country without issue, which contradicted his assertion of being blacklisted. The Tribunal also noted the absence of any documentation supporting his arrest or detention.

Applying the principles of refugee law, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's alleged involvement in the Bersih 4.0 rally, or any subsequent blacklisting, was credible or would lead to persecution upon his return to Malaysia. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion, assessing whether there was a real risk of significant harm. Given the lack of credible evidence of past harm or blacklisting, and noting the change of government in Malaysia in 2018 which suggested a more open political discourse, the Tribunal found no substantial grounds to believe the applicant would suffer significant harm. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.