1812228 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse their application for a protection visa. The applicant's written claims stated a fear of harm in Malaysia due to their Christian faith, but at the hearing, the applicant indicated these claims were not theirs and that they were Buddhist. The applicant expressed a desire to remain in Australia but was unable or unwilling to articulate any specific reasons for fearing return to Malaysia.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant was a refugee, as defined by section 5H, by considering whether they held a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether there was a real chance of such persecution in Malaysia. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider if the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires a substantial ground for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had sworn an oath as a Buddhist but had previously claimed fear of persecution as a Christian. The applicant stated they were unaware of the contents of their original application and confirmed their Buddhist faith, but declined to provide reasons for not wishing to return to Malaysia, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so. Given the applicant's inability to articulate any claim for protection, and the lack of evidence supporting a fear of persecution or significant harm on return to Malaysia, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.