1901407 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by an applicant who had previously resided in Malaysia. The applicant alleged that while working on a farm in Malaysia, he was forced by his employer to source animal feed from an uncertified supplier. This resulted in animal poisoning, and the applicant was subsequently pressured by the government to take responsibility, leading to legal proceedings and a police search for him in his hometown. The applicant did not wish to attend a hearing and consented to the Tribunal making a decision based on the available material.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia. This required an assessment of the applicant's claims against the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he met the definition of a refugee or qualified for complementary protection under the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal was required to consider whether the alleged harm constituted "significant harm" as defined by the Act and whether any effective protection measures were available to the applicant in Malaysia.

The Tribunal reasoned that the mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or that it is well-founded. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims. In this instance, the applicant had not provided evidence to demonstrate that he would face a real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia. Furthermore, the applicant had not satisfied the Tribunal that he met the criteria for being a refugee or for complementary protection, particularly in light of his decision not to participate in a hearing or present further evidence. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not suggested he was a family member of someone who met the criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.