1827864 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Malaysia due to an incident involving a girlfriend and a gang, which allegedly resulted in him being beaten and having acid thrown on him, and subsequently being rejected by his family and community. The AAT was required to determine whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant possessed a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, there was a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal also considered its obligations under section 5AAA of the Act, which places the responsibility on the applicant to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to discharge his onus of proof. Despite being invited to a hearing, the applicant did not attend and had not provided any additional material to support his claims since lodging his application. The Tribunal found the information provided to be vague and lacking in specific details regarding the alleged threats, the identity of the perpetrators, the nature and extent of the harm suffered, and the circumstances of his departure from Malaysia and alleged flight to an island. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies, such as claiming to be rejected by his family while also stating he contacts them monthly. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm in Malaysia.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that there was insufficient information before it to be satisfied of the applicant's claims.