1709943 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm if returned to Malaysia, alleging abuse by their stepfather and resulting emotional harm. The primary decision-maker had found issues with the applicant's credibility, noting incorrect information provided on the application form and a lack of specific details regarding the alleged abuse.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically whether the alleged abuse by the stepfather constituted persecution and whether the applicant's claims were credible. The court also considered whether the Minister's decision was affected by an error of law.

In reaching its decision, the court applied the principles established in *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh* and *Applicant S20/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs*. The court found that the applicant's evidence regarding the abuse was vague and lacked specificity, and that the inconsistencies in the application form raised significant credibility concerns. The court concluded that the applicant had not discharged the onus of proving a well-founded fear of persecution.

The court affirmed the decision under review.