1808610 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by Malaysian citizens who claimed to fear harm due to their Chinese race and Buddhist religion, including alleged threats and physical assault from their village. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the delegate's decision to refuse the visas. The applicants provided a copy of their Malaysian passport bio-data page, which was accepted as evidence of their citizenship and country of origin.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether Australia had protection obligations towards them under the 'refugee' or 'complementary protection' grounds as outlined in section 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing the genuineness and well-foundedness of their asserted fear of harm and whether such harm was for the claimed reasons. The Tribunal also considered its obligations under Ministerial Direction No. 84, including relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal reasoned that while it accepted the applicants were Malaysian citizens, the mere assertion of fear of harm was insufficient to establish its genuineness or that it was well-founded for the claimed reasons. The applicants had not provided sufficient detail to satisfy the Tribunal that they had a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm, including from alleged religious discrimination, or that they were asked to leave their village. The Tribunal reiterated that the onus remained on the applicant to supply the necessary facts in sufficient detail for the decision-maker to establish them, and that a decision-maker was not required to construct the applicant's case. The applicants failed to attend a scheduled hearing despite receiving invitations and reminders, leading the Tribunal to proceed with the decision under section 426A of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. Therefore, they did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa), nor the related family unit criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c). The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visas.