1907845 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, a male from Sabah, Malaysia, claimed to be bisexual and feared persecution in Malaysia due to its laws criminalising same-sex relations, which carry penalties including imprisonment and whipping. The applicant had lodged his protection visa application in August 2018, and the Department subsequently refused his application in March 2019, finding his claims lacked substantiating personal details. The applicant appealed this decision to the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether Australia had protection obligations towards him under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958. This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. A further issue was whether the applicant had provided sufficient personal information to substantiate his claims, as opposed to relying on general country information.

The Tribunal affirmed the Department's decision, concluding that the applicant had not established that he was a person in respect of whom Australia owed protection obligations. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been given multiple opportunities to provide further personal details to support his claims, particularly regarding his experiences and fears in Malaysia, but failed to do so. Despite being invited to attend a hearing and given further opportunities to present evidence, the applicant elected to have the matter decided on the papers and did not participate further in the process. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims primarily referenced the general situation in Malaysia rather than his specific personal circumstances, and without this personal evidence, it could not be satisfied that he met the criteria for a protection visa.

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