1710105 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming to be a Chinese national from Melaka, Malaysia, who feared persecution from Malay gangs. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or whether he would suffer significant harm if returned to Malaysia. The case was heard by Luke Hardy, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant qualified for a protection visa, either on refugee grounds or complementary protection. A significant aspect of this determination involved assessing the applicant's credibility as a witness, given the nature of his claims and the evidence presented. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's account of harassment by Malay gangs, his claims of threats at his workplace and on his way home, and his assertion that police protection was unavailable.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be implausible, contradictory, and inconsistent. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the applicant's claims regarding the 13 May 1969 race riots were anachronistic, as he was not born until after the event. Furthermore, his assertion of changing jobs multiple times to evade the gang was contradicted by his claim of working for the same firm at the same address until shortly before his arrival in Australia. The applicant also failed to provide supporting documentation or specific timelines for the alleged mistreatment. In light of these credibility issues and the lack of corroborating evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution.

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