1723092 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, a Buddhist of Chinese ethnicity, claimed he feared harm if returned to Malaysia due to his relationship with a Malaysian Muslim woman. He alleged that her parents pressured him to convert to Islam, assaulted him when he refused, and threatened to throw him in the river. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, including the complementary protection criterion.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of relevant policy guidelines and country information. It noted significant credibility concerns arising from the applicant's lack of supporting evidence for his relationship and cohabitation with his girlfriend, and his failure to provide documentation for his alleged police complaint. Furthermore, the Tribunal found a material inconsistency between the applicant's claim of relocating for three months prior to his departure and his visa application, which stated he had resided at the same address for many years.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not adequately prepared his case, despite clear warnings in departmental decisions and the Tribunal's hearing invitation about the need for supporting, independent information. The applicant's assertion that he did not know what else to do beyond repeating his story, and his dismissal of the relocation period as insignificant, undermined the credibility of his fear of harm. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine fear or provided sufficient evidence to establish a real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.