1724511 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, an ethnic Chinese Malay Buddhist, claimed to have suffered harm from her Malay Muslim boyfriend's parents, including being locked in a room and beaten on two occasions. She also alleged that the police failed to act on her complaint due to her not being Muslim and feared similar treatment if returned to Malaysia. The AAT was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or whether she would suffer significant harm if returned to Malaysia, as defined by the Migration Act 1958. This required the Tribunal to assess the evidence presented by the applicant and consider relevant country information and policy guidelines. A key aspect of the determination was the applicant's failure to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal noted that it only had access to the departmental and Tribunal files as they stood at the hearing date, and apart from the claims made in the application form, there was no other information or documentation to support the applicant's claims. Specifically, there was no independent evidence, such as a police complaint form, to corroborate her allegations of seeking protection in Malaysia. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the applicant had maintained continuous employment in Malaysia from 1982 to 2017, including during a period she had returned to Malaysia, which did not align with her claims of instability and relocation due to persecution. The Tribunal also highlighted that it had not had the opportunity to question the applicant directly due to her absence from the hearing, and that she had been properly notified of the hearing date and requirements. Pursuant to section 426A of the Act, the Tribunal proceeded to make its decision without further action to enable the applicant to appear.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. This outcome was based on the lack of supporting evidence for her claims and her failure to attend the hearing, which prevented the Tribunal from fully assessing her case.