1707501 (Refugee)

The applicant, who arrived in Australia in August 2016, sought a protection visa, claiming he was pursued by the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) of Malaysia for alleged unpaid tax. He asserted that this pursuit was discriminatory against ethnic Chinese, citing incidents of alleged fraud and threats by IRB officials, and that victims were selected based on perceived wealth. The applicant also claimed economic hardship and a lack of protection from Malaysian authorities. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically race, in Malaysia. This required the court to consider the applicant's evidence regarding the actions of the IRB, the alleged discrimination against ethnic Chinese, and the adequacy of protection available to him in Malaysia. The court also had to assess whether the incidents described by the applicant constituted persecution or a serious possibility of persecution, and whether the IRB's actions were motivated by a Convention reason.

The court considered the applicant's evidence, which included claims of being harassed and threatened by IRB officials, including a threat to "chop off your hand" and a statement that they could arrest and lock him up. The applicant also stated that the IRB targeted Chinese business owners and that he received no protection from Malaysian authorities. However, the court noted that the applicant had not provided country information to support his claims of widespread threats by IRB officers or that victims were selected based on wealth. While the applicant alleged discrimination and threats, the court found no evidence of actual threats by IRB officers, nor any country information suggesting such threats were a real possibility. The court also noted that the applicant had paid the alleged tax debt and that his business had closed due to his inability to handle the claims, not necessarily due to ongoing persecution. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.

The court affirmed the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.