1924051 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Malaysian Chinese applicant. The applicant claimed he could not return to Malaysia due to racism, his enjoyment of alcohol, and his tattoos, which he believed would make it difficult to find employment. He also cited a past assault by Malay individuals and general societal discrimination as reasons for his fear. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was a real chance the applicant would be persecuted or suffer significant harm upon return to Malaysia.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of country information, including assessments from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The DFAT assessment indicated that Chinese Malaysians experienced low levels of official and societal discrimination, primarily when seeking work in the civil service or attempting to open a business. The applicant's account of the assault was vague, and he admitted it was a historical event that did not directly affect him. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that spouses of Malaysian nationals could obtain long-term visas, and the applicant's assertion that his Australian permanent resident wife would be unable to obtain a visa was not substantiated.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. It found that the country information did not support a high risk of discrimination against Chinese Malaysians, and the applicant's personal experiences were not sufficiently severe or indicative of persecution. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's ability to return to Kuala Lumpur, where he had previously lived and worked, and to support himself and his wife. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.