1831897 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to be of Chinese race and Buddhist faith, and who had left Malaysia due to riots, racism, corruption, and concerns about terrorism and crime. The applicant asserted that the Malaysian authorities were unable to protect them and that the situation in Malaysia was unsafe. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa, which had found that while the applicant might face some discrimination, it would not reach the threshold for persecution, and that Malaysian authorities could provide protection.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the prescribed reasons under the Act, and if not, whether there was a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia. The Tribunal was required to consider documentary evidence submitted by the applicant, including their visa application and passport details, as well as administrative records. The applicant had not been offered an interview by the Department.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of country information and relevant guidelines. It noted that the "real risk" test for significant harm is equivalent to the "real chance" test for a well-founded fear. The Tribunal found that it had properly invited the applicant to a hearing to present oral evidence and arguments, having provided notice via email and SMS reminders to the updated contact details provided by the applicant. Despite these invitations, the applicant failed to attend the hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision based on the material before it. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant's fears were not well-founded and that there was no real risk of significant harm.