2012445 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Malaysian citizen, sought review of a decision affirming the refusal of his protection visa. The dispute centred on his claims of persecution in Malaysia, stemming from his public criticism of a Sultan and his son, which he alleged led to threats, physical assault, and fear of further harm. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that his removal from Australia to Malaysia would result in a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal reasoned that the onus was on the applicant to establish the statutory elements of his claim by providing sufficient particulars and evidence. It noted that mere assertions of fear do not automatically establish a well-founded fear or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims, including his dissatisfaction with a Sultan and his son, his Facebook comments, subsequent threats, and physical assault. However, it found that these claims lacked sufficient detail and were unsupported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal also took into account relevant guidelines and country information.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the onus of proof required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.