1708472 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed a decision concerning an applicant's claim for a protection visa. The applicant arrived in Australia in October 2016 and subsequently applied for a protection visa in January 2017. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's credibility and whether, based on his claims, he met the criteria for protection under Australian law.

The Tribunal was required to determine the credibility of the applicant's claims of persecution in Malaysia. Specifically, the applicant alleged he was targeted by a drug dealer due to his cousin's involvement in a drug-related crime, leading to threats and physical harm. The Tribunal also needed to assess whether, on the accepted facts, the applicant fulfilled the statutory requirements for the grant of a protection visa, considering both refugee and complementary protection criteria.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in cases such as *MIEA v Guo & Anor* and *Prasad v MIEA*, which outline the applicant's onus to provide sufficient detail to establish their case and that decision-makers are not required to construct the applicant's case for them. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had provided inconsistent information and failed to provide details regarding his employment history. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the DFAT Country Information Report for Malaysia. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's claims lacked credibility and did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.