1707500 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, sought review of a decision to refuse her protection visa. The applicant initially claimed to have left Malaysia due to the country's worsening political and economic situation, fearing she would be unable to subsist or provide for her family. During a hearing before the Tribunal, she added a claim that she was a victim of domestic violence by her ex-husband, reporting that the Royal Malaysia Police did not accept her report. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility and the merits of her claims, including whether she had a genuine fear of persecution and whether she had provided all relevant claims and evidence to the primary decision-maker.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of country information for Malaysia and the legal requirements for a protection visa under section 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994. A key issue was the applicant's failure to present her domestic violence claim and related evidence to the primary decision-maker. The Tribunal noted that under section 423A of the Act, it must draw an adverse inference regarding the credibility of claims or evidence not previously presented, unless the applicant provides a reasonable explanation for the omission. The Tribunal also applied the principle that it is for the applicant to establish their case and present all particulars and evidence, with no obligation on the decision-maker to assist in establishing the claim.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. It found that the applicant had not provided a reasonable explanation for failing to raise her domestic violence claim and associated evidence before the primary decision-maker, leading to an adverse inference regarding its credibility. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not subjectively held a genuine fear of persecution, which meant there was no need to consider the objective basis of her claims. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.