1724361 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Buddhist Chinese national, sought a protection visa based on claims of persecution in Malaysia due to his relationship with a Malay woman. He alleged that his girlfriend's parents objected to the relationship on ethnic and religious grounds, physically attacked him, and that the police refused to intervene, citing the matter as a "Chinese/Malay problem." The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the decision not to grant the visa.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was 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, as required by the Migration Act 1958. This involved determining if the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims of a relationship, the alleged attack, and the police's refusal to act, and whether these circumstances constituted persecution or significant harm.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to discharge his onus of proof. Despite the applicant's claims, there was no objective, independent, or corroborative evidence on the departmental or Tribunal files to support his assertions. This included a lack of documentation regarding his alleged relationship, any visit to the police station, or any medical treatment sought following the claimed attack. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not attend the scheduled hearing, and despite proper service of the hearing invitation, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision on the available file material. Citing established legal principles, the Tribunal emphasised that an applicant must specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence, and that a decision-maker is not obligated to construct the case for the applicant.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the applicant's claim to be unsubstantiated and a fabrication, concluding that he had not satisfied the statutory criteria for a protection visa. The decision under review was affirmed.