2012751 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1568

2012751 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1568 (19 JUNE 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2012751
Tribunal:General Member D Hughes
Date:19 June 2025

Place:Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa

Statement made on 19 June 2025 at 4:03pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – ethnicity and political opinion – Chinese Malaysian – social media criticism of royal family and government – threatened and attacked by Malays, including during return visit for father’s funeral – recent threats communicated to mother – vague claims and evidence – adverse information – claims nearly identical to other unrelated applications – applications prepared by agent – limited corroborative evidence – partner’s separate application on different grounds – some low-level discrimination of Chinese Malaysians – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
2012357 (Refugee), AATA, 8 July 2024
2012441 (Refugee), ARTA, 15 January 2025
2012445 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4854
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a national of Malaysia, applied for the visa on 18 January 2020. In a decision dated 23 July 2020, the delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for grant of a protection visa.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 April 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter in the English and Mandarin languages.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a [Age] year old national of Malaysia from Pulau Pinang. He last arrived in Australia [in] August 2019 while on a student visa before applying for protection in January 2020.
Evidence before the Department
The applicant’s claims for protection were included in his protection visa application form.
The applicant claims to fear harm because of his online criticism of the Sultan and his son. He claims he was threatened and beaten by a group of Malays because of this. He fears he will again be harmed for these reasons if he returns to Malaysia.
The applicant was not interviewed by the delegate. On 9 June 2020, the delegate wrote to the applicant and invited him to provide further information in support of his application, and further details about his claims.
The applicant did not respond or engage with that request.
On 23 July 2020, the delegate refused the application for a protection visa. The delegate was not satisfied the applicant’s claims were credible.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The applicant applied for review of that decision on 11 August 2020, and attended a hearing before the Tribunal on 24 April 2025.
Following the hearing, the applicant was provided with further time to make post hearing submissions. On 8 May 2025, a post hearing submission and photos were provided. A further copy was subsequently given to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s oral and written evidence in the assessment below.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the criteria for grant of a protection visa.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Identity and background
The applicant provided the Department with a copy of the biodata page from his Malaysian passport. The Tribunal is satisfied from the documentary and other evidence that the applicant is a national of Malaysia.
The applicant’s siblings and mother live in Pinang, Malaysia. The applicant claimed to have a sister in Australia, who lives here on the basis of employment sponsorship. The applicant also has a partner in Australia. He indicated she has applied for protection on the basis of harassment from Malays. He confirmed his specific claims are separate, and it was not necessary to take evidence from his partner, who was not at the hearing.
At the hearing, the applicant confirmed aspects of his evidence from the visa application, including his education ([School]) and residential history in Malaysia ([Location]). He also provided additional information that was not included, including evidence that he had worked part time in [work tasks] for around three years prior to leaving the country to study in Australia. He also corrected that he was not a Christian.
The applicant arrived in Australia as a student, but did not complete his studies. Over the last several years, he claims to have worked for [workplaces] in [Suburbs 1 and 2] as [an occupation].
Claims for protection
In the protection visa application, the applicant’s claims relate to his political opinion and ethnic profile. He claims he expressed his dissatisfaction with the ‘Sultan and his son’ and made comments on [Social media 1] critical of the Sultan and the Federal Government. He claims that this angered Islamic and Malay people. He claims that some Malay people threatened to kill him to protect the Sultan’s reputation. He claims he was beaten by the ‘Malay group’ when he went to the market. They also came to his house to find him.
At the hearing, the applicant said that he had not faced any issues when he left Malaysia in 2017, although he claims he had published news and comments on social media by that time. He indicated he had been critical of the Malaysian King and Royal Family. He said he forwarded news on [Social media 1]. He indicated he no longer had evidence of these posts. He said when he was attacked in 2019, they asked him to cancel his social media accounts.
The applicant said that in 2018, while he was studying in Australia, he received threatening letters. Asked if anything else happened, the applicant said that in early 2018, some Malay people would go to his home (in Malaysia) to harass him, but he was not home. He believes he was targeted because he was from a different race and because he had published and forwarded news about the ‘Royal Family’ on social media.
The applicant claimed that he returned to Malaysia for a week in August 2019 when his father passed away. He claims that during this time he was attacked by a group of Malay people and he suffered knife injuries to his [body parts 1 and 2], which required stitches. He says he stopped going to class because of his injuries. He said an agent told him he could apply for protection and that he did not need to study anymore.
At the hearing, the applicant confirmed he was attacked by a group of Malays, although he clarified this was outside a convenience store rather than a market. He confirmed this was the only time he had been attacked. In terms of the threats, he said that they had threatened and harassed his mother and disturbed her business. He claimed that there are many incidents where Chinese people are targeted by Malay people. He also said his mother was robbed. He said she is elderly and fragile to this kind of threat and on one occasion she was hospitalised.
At the hearing, the applicant said that he did not go to a hospital after the attack, but he went to a small clinic. He claims the attackers threatened him and told him not to go to a hospital.
The applicant also gave evidence that he did not go to the police, nor did his mother when she faced issues. He said judging from their appearance the attackers were not an ordinary Malay group and he suspected they were the police. He said Malaysia is not a just society. Asked why the police would target his mother, he said because he forwarded news against the Royal Family.
The applicant gave evidence about the content he shared online. He referred to an incident involving the former Prime Minister (Najib) having an extramarital affair with a Mongolian woman. He said inflation was very bad because of him. He also referred to the fifth son of the Royal Family having an extramarital affair with a Russian woman. He said someone who forwarded that news had been jailed for ten years.
The applicant initially indicated at the hearing that nothing else had happened since 2019 and that he had not shared anything political after deleting his social media (after the attack in 2019). He said the last issue faced by his family was in December of last year (2024). He said his mother had received a threatening letter asking him to return and present himself as soon as possible. He claimed this was because he had forwarded news on WeChat in March or April of last year (2024) relating to a woman that had been involved in a car accident killing several children, and a request for donations for legal representation. When the Tribunal put to him that he had previously told the Tribunal that he deleted his social media and he did not post anything else, the applicant suggested he had misunderstood the Tribunal’s previous question. He confirmed he had no evidence of sharing this news online.
Analysis of evidence
As indicated above, the Tribunal has weighed the applicant’s oral and written evidence, including his post hearing submissions, however it has a number of concerns with the reliability of his evidence and the credibility of his protection claims
Adverse information
Firstly, as put to the applicant at the hearing, a serious concern relates to his claims as advanced in his written visa application and in his oral evidence before the Tribunal. Key to those concerns is that the applicant’s written claims in his protection visa application are identical or near identical to claims made in other unrelated protection visa reviews considered by the Tribunal and the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
It is illustrative to this case to extract part of the applicant’s protection claims as included in his own protection visa application:
Provide reasons why this applicant left that country or those countries:

I WAS DISSATISFIED WITH THE WAY ONE OF THE SULTAN AND HIS SON. THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARDS PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FROM THE STATE IS VERY UNFAIR. WHEN I EXPRESSED MY DISSATISFACTION, MOST OF THE ISLAMIC PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY MALAY WERE ANGRY TO ME. I CAN TAKE RESPONSIBILITY IF THEIR TAKING THE CASE TO THE AUTHORITY, BUT WHAT THEY DID IS OUT OF THE LAW. I WAS BEATEN AND THREATEN. I HAVE MAKE A COMMENT AT [Social media 1] MEDIA ABOUT SULTAN CANNOT DISTURB STATE OR FEDERALGOVERNMENT CABINET ANY DECISION MADE, BECAUSE IT IS ACCORDING TO RULES AND REGULATION FEDERAL LAW 1957. BUT, ONCE I HAVE A COMMENT ON IT, SOME MALAY PEOPLE COME TO HARMED AND THEREAT TO KILL ME FOR PROTECTED THEIR SULTAN REPUTATION.

Did the applicant experience harm:

… YES. I WAS BEATEN BY THE MALAY GROUP WHEN I WENT TO MARKET. THEY ALSO HAVE COME TO MY HOUSE TO FIND ME.
In an unrelated decision of the ART, the protection claims of the applicant (in that matter) were extracted verbatim as follows:
The applicant’s claims were set out in his protection visa application. In answer to the question as to why he left Malaysia, the applicant stated:
I WAS DISSATISFIED WITH THE WAY ONE OF THE SULTAN AND HIS SON. THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARDS PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FROM THE STATE IS VERY UNFAIR. WHEN I EXPRESSED MY DISSATISFACTION, MOST OF THE ISLAMIC PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY MALAY WERE ANGRY TO ME. I CAN TAKE RESPONSIBILITY IF THEIR TAKING THE CASE TO THE AUTHORITY, BUT WHAT THEY DID IS OUT OF THE LAW. I WAS BEATEN AND THREATEN. I HAVE MAKE A COMMENT AT [Social media 1] MEDIA ABOUT SULTAN CANNOT DISTURB STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CABINET ANY DECISION MADE, BECAUSE IT IS ACCORDING TO RULES AND REGULATION FEDERAL LAW 1957. BUT, ONCE I HAVE A COMMENT ON IT, SOME MALAY PEOPLE COME TO HARMED AND THEREAT TO KILL ME FOR PROTECTED THEIR SULTAN REPUTATION.
The applicant described the harm he experienced in Malaysia as follows:

[1] 2012441 (Refugee), ART (unpublished), (15 January 2025), per Senior Member Cranwell, at 9-10
YES. I WAS BEATEN BY THE MALAY GROUP WHEN I WENT TO MARKET. THEY ALSO HAVE COME TO MY HOUSE TO FIND ME.[1]
In an unrelated published decision of the former AAT, the protection claims of the applicant (in that matter) were extracted as follows:
The applicant’s claims for protection, as set out in his protection visa application, are summarised as follows:
·He left Malaysia as he was dissatisfied with one of the Sultans and his son. He thought their attitude towards people who are not from ‘the state’ was very unfair.
·When he expressed his dissatisfaction, most of the Islamic people, especially the Malay people, were angry with him. He can take responsibility if they are taking the case to the authorities, but what they did is outside of the law. He was beaten and threatened.
·He made a comment on [Social media 1] that the Sultan cannot ‘disturb’ any decision made by the State or Federal Government Cabinet, because it is according to the rules and regulations of the Federal Law 1957. Once he commented, some Malay people came to harm him and threatened to kill him, to protect their Sultan’s reputation.
·He was beaten by a Malay group when he went to the market. They also came to his house to find him.[2]
[2] 2012445 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4854 (12 December 2023), per Member Windsor, at 14
In another unrelated decision of the former AAT, the protection claims of the applicant (in that matter) were summarised by the AAT as follows:
In the visa application form, the applicant declared that she left Malaysia because she was ‘dissatisfied with the way one of the Sultan and his son’ and that ‘their attitude towards people who are not from the state is very unfair.’ She declared that ‘when I expressed by dissatisfaction, most of the Islamic people, especially Malay, were angry to me.’ She wrote that ‘I can take responsibility if their taking the case to the authority, but what they did is out of the law.’ She also claimed that she was ‘beaten and threaten’ and that she ‘make a comment at [Social media 1] media about Sultan cannot disturb state or federal government cabinet any decision made, because it is according to the rules and regulation federal law 1957.’ She further claimed that ‘Once I have a comment on it, some Malay people come to harmed threat to kill me for protected their Sultan reputation.’
She claimed that she was beaten by ‘the Malay group’ when she ‘went to market.’ She also declared that ‘they also have come to my house to find me.’[3]
[3] 2012357 (Refugee), AAT (unpublished) (8 July 2024), per Member Goetz, at 27-28
As evident from the above, the applicant’s written claims are identical or near identical to information provided in a number of other unrelated protection visa matters considered by the Tribunal. In each of these matters the relevant protection visa application was lodged prior to the applicant’s own visa application which was lodged on 18 January 2020.[4] That indicates to the Tribunal that his claims were either copied or not personal to him and therefore that his claims are not credible.
[4] 2012441 (Refugee), ART (unpublished), (15 January 2025), per Senior Member Cranwell, at 1; 2012445 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4854 (12 December 2023), per Member Windsor, at 2; 2012357 (Refugee), AAT (unpublished) (8 July 2024), per Member Goetz, at 10
At the hearing, the applicant asked the Tribunal if it was possible he and the other applicants used the same agent, and that the agent copy and pasted his claims and used it in other matters. The Tribunal referred to one of the matters where the applicant applied for a protection visa in December 2019 and noted the applicant had applied for a protection visa in January 2020. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he thought it was possible that someone copied his protection claims. The applicant then suggested he started discussing the matter with his agent in August 2019, and the agent might not have lodged the claims until January 2020. The applicant suggested he had told the agent what happened in 2019, but he did not know what was included in his own application until discussing these matters with ART staff.
In his post hearing response, the applicant said that he was assisted by a ‘so called agent’ who charged him a few hundred dollars. He claimed he had little understanding of the system, and trusted the agent to represent his situation truthfully. He did not understand English and did not understand what was written, even though he had related his situation. He said he now recognised parts of his submission may have been copied from other applicants. He contends that his experiences are real and personal to him.

At the hearing, the applicant suggested that his protection claims were copied by the agent. However, in his post hearing submission he appears to concede that his claims were copied from other applications, but he contends that his experiences were nonetheless real.
As discussed below, the inclusion of these claims in his protection visa application, and claims that he reiterated in his oral evidence before the Tribunal, raised serious concerns for the Tribunal about the reliability of this evidence and the credibility of his protection claims.
Limited corroborative evidence
Secondly, a further concern for the Tribunal was the limited corroborative evidence in terms of his protection claims.
The applicant has contended that he shared political content on [Social media 1] and WeChat, and later [Social media 2] and WhatsApp, and that both he and his mother received threatening letters in response to his activities. However, he has provided no evidence of these matters in his submissions. He contended that he deleted his social media because of the threats from the people that attacked him, and this was why he had no evidence. He contends that he acted out of survival and not deception.
That of itself is not implausible, however the applicant later claimed that he forwarded news articles on WeChat in 2024 and that his mother received a threatening letter in response to that. Yet again, he did not provide any evidence of either the posts or the threatening letter. At this point, the applicant had already applied for protection, and if he had posted or shared further articles, or received written threats as a consequence, the Tribunal considers he would have preserved that evidence. The absence of that evidence is a concern for the Tribunal.
In terms of his injuries, at the hearing the applicant indicated he did not attend a hospital because he was threatened and told not to. In his post hearing submissions, he indicated he had contacted the clinic, but it has hundreds of patients per day and it did not keep such records. He contends that his experience was deeply traumatic and shocking, that he was frightened and ashamed, and that he did not feel safe going to a hospital or police station – as these are institutions that he and many in his community have come to distrust.
The applicant provided photographs of a bandaged injured [body part 2], and a visible scar he contends is on his [body part 1]. The Tribunal has considered the photos, and his contentions about his fear of going to the hospital or police. Those concerns potentially have some weight. However, the photos provide only limited evidence of these injuries. There is nothing to indicate when the photos were taken or where. While he may contend that he was fearful of attending the hospital in Malaysia, it is the case that he returned to Australia soon after the attack, yet there is no evidence that he had his injuries assessed or treated in this country.
The Tribunal gives the evidence of injuries and scarring some positive weight, however there is also very little about it that credibly corroborates or supports his claims.
The Tribunal is conscious of the difficulties faced by applicants in providing corroborative evidence, but it is a concern for the Tribunal that there is such limited corroborative evidence of his claims and past experiences.
Extent of political activity and country information
Thirdly, the Tribunal considers the applicant’s evidence of his political opinion and expression were limited, and in the context of the country information before it, it raised doubts for the Tribunal as to whether he would be targeted in the way he contends.
The contention in the written application was that the applicant was critical of the Sultan (the King) and his son. The applicant confirmed the same in his evidence at the hearing, while also indicating he had shared news about the Prime Minister and a criminal case.
DFAT indicates some sensitivity to political expression in Malaysia, particularly where it involves sensitive topics or ‘the three Rs’ of race, religion or royalty.[5] DFAT assesses:
[Individuals] who criticise the government generally face a low risk of official discrimination in the form of legal action by authorities and a moderate risk where they broach politically sensitive topics (the ‘3Rs’) or where their criticism is especially prominent. DFAT assessed that individuals are generally not at risk of violence on the grounds of their political affiliations.[6]
[5] DFAT, Country Information Report – Malaysia, 24 June 2024, 3.91
[6] DFAT, Country Information Report – Malaysia, 24 June 2024, 3.98
At the hearing, the applicant spoke to the articles he claims he shared or forwarded – relating to an extramarital relationship between one of the sons of the Royal Family and a Russian woman; an extramarital relationship involving a former Prime Minister and a Mongolian woman; and legal fundraising for a woman who had killed several children in a car accident.
The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence of the political news he shared to be limited and unsupported by any other evidence. Additionally, only one article clearly related to the Royal Family – to which the applicant contended the Prime Minister was a member of the Royal Family. And the latest article – relating to the car accident that he shared in 2024 – does not obviously relate to the Royal Family or the Government at all.
In terms of sharing news on the last matter, as it does not appear to relate to the government or the Royal Family, it is not clear why it would result in any response from the authorities, let alone his contention that his mother was sent a threatening letter in response to it.
At the hearing, the Tribunal noted the country advice about the low risk of discrimination for people that criticise the government, the moderate risks for those the broach politically sensitive topics or who are especially prominent in their political criticism, and that Malaysians are generally not at risk of violence because of their political affiliations.
In that context, the applicant claimed to have faced quite serious violence, however his claimed political activity did not appear to be politically prominent, noting that it appeared he had only forwarded news articles. He had not created political posts or written articles or criticised the Malaysian Government, and he was not involved in protests. It appeared he had shared only one news report about the Royal Family, and the extent of criticism in that report was not clear. While such postings could potentially result in an official response, it raised considerable doubts for the Tribunal as to whether it would result in such violence.
In response to these issues, the applicant said the information in the DFAT report may be based on official views and a general assessment. He said he knows people that have faced consequences for sharing news. He said he recently watched a video of 5-8 Malaysian people beating a Chinese man. He said in another case a traffic control police officer kicked a delivery man’s vehicle. He also referred to a Chinese Mayor being shot by Malays. He said these little things are happening, but may not be seen by officials.
In his post hearing submission, the applicant sought to expand on his political motivations, referring to historical political and sectarian issues arising in the country, and the preferential treatment and entitlements given to ‘original’ Malays. He likened his status as a third generation Chinese born in Malaysia to the circumstances faced by Australia’s Aboriginal communities. He also discusses the dominance of the Malaysian Islamic Party in some states. He refers to the challenges he and other Chinese Malays faced, and that forwarding these articles was a way of releasing his anger about what he read in the news.
In that submission, the applicant acknowledges that he was not a ‘high profile political activist’ but he contends that reposting or commenting on sensitive topics – race, religion and royalty – can lead to arrest or prosecution, and that there are documented cases of people bring arrested for less than he posted. He suggests that he is a political scapegoat. He further contends that as a member of a marginalised ethnic group (ethnic Chinese) and someone with pro-democracy views expressed abroad, he fears that he would be seen as a threat by Malaysian authorities or vigilante groups, as such online expression often attracts disproportionate punishment.
The Tribunal has considered his submissions.
The Tribunal does not find the applicant’s post hearing contention that he is a member of a marginalised ethnic group that has expressed pro-democracy views abroad to be credible, nor does it accept that he would be seen as a threat to the Malaysian authorities or ‘vigilante groups’. The applicant’s sharing of news was not obviously pro-democratic, particularly since he has been in Australia. The single example of content he shared over WeChat while in Australia related to a legal matter (a woman who killed several children in a car accident) which he did not tie to government or politics or democracy in the country. The Tribunal considers that his post hearing submission is at odds with his earlier claims.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the country information may not reflect every issue or instance of discrimination or violence faced by people in the country related to their political activities or ethnicity, but the Tribunal considers the analysis takes into account a range of sources, both government and non-government, and the Tribunal considers it reflects the risk profiles of these groups.
The country advice does not suggest that an ethnic Chinese Malay would be targeted for violence for reasons of their ethnicity and political views. The country advice indicates that Chinese Malaysians ‘freely participate in political life’ in Malaysia. Contrary to the applicant’s contentions, there are ethnic Chinese ministers within the government and members of opposition parties. DFAT indicates that ethnic Chinese politicians have ‘occasionally faced public criticism for interfering with ‘Malay rights’’. Beyond that, the advice does not suggest that Chinese Malays are differentially treated or targeted because of their ethnicity in terms of politics.[7]
[7] DFAT, Country Information Report – Malaysia, 24 June 2024, 3.11 - 3.15
The Tribunal does not consider the post hearing submissions are a genuine reflection of the situation in Malaysia, or the applicant’s own profile. The Tribunal does not accept he is a political scapegoat or that he was targeted for those reasons. The Tribunal considers the applicant is overstating his profile and that his contentions about the risks to him on the basis of such a profile are unsupported in the country advice and not consistent with his earlier claims.
The Tribunal does accept that there are likely instances where lower level political commentary on sensitive topics may result in an official reaction from the authorities. However, even accepting the potential sensitivity relating to his claimed sharing of an article involving a member of the royal family, the Tribunal is not satisfied that such limited political commentary or the sharing of such articles would result in such a severe response from the authorities. His criticism was not particularly prominent, indeed it appears from his evidence that he claims to have ‘forwarded’ news articles, rather than engaged in his own political commentary or criticism of the Malaysia Royal Family or Government.
While the Tribunal has accepted that a person sharing articles on sensitive topics could potentially face consequences, it has serious doubts that the applicant’s claimed activities had or would have resulted in any official response, let alone that he would be targeted for violence by persons or groups because of that commentary, or that his family would face threats, harassment and disturbance. The Tribunal considers his claimed political profile was limited and his claims to have faced violence are not supported by the country information.
Other concerns
Lastly, the Tribunal had a range of other concerns with the applicant’s claims and evidence.
The applicant has been vague about who is targeting him. In the visa application, it is contended that the applicant was being targeted by Islamic people and Malays. At the hearing, the applicant contended it was a group of Malays, before speculating that it may have been the police and this was one of the reasons he and his mother did not go to the police. In his post hearing submission, he contends that it could have been thugs from the street, involved in targeting low social status Chinese to reduce the Chinese population in Penang for future elections, and that he is a ‘political scapegoat’.
The Tribunal has considered the fact that a victim of such violence may not know who the attackers are, or their motives. However, the applicant’s shifting evidence about who was targeting him, and the reasons he is being targeted, raises further concerns for the Tribunal about the reliability of these claims.
A further concern for the Tribunal discussed at the hearing was the timing of the attack. The applicant returned to Malaysia briefly in 2019 for his father’s funeral. He contends that it was during this period that he was attacked. A concern for the Tribunal at the hearing was the duration of his stay and the potential for him to be targeted for harm in such a short period.
In his post hearing submissions, the applicant contends that he was specifically targeted because people knew he had returned to his hometown.
The Tribunal has reflected on this matter and considers the applicant’s explanations should be accepted. If the applicant did have an adverse profile, it is not implausible that he could be targeted within a short window, particularly if it was known that he had returned to Malaysia.
The Tribunal does not give any adverse weight to the short period that the applicant was in Malaysia, however, that of itself also does not overcome the Tribunal’s other concerns in relation to these claims for protection.
Overall assessment
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s initial request for further time to make post hearing submissions, and his contentions that he was nervous at the hearing and has a poor memory, and that he was young and arrogant in 2019. Those contentions were made in the context of the opportunity to provide post hearing submissions, but the Tribunal has considered them in this context also. However, in terms of the Tribunal’s concerns about these claims, the Tribunal does not consider these are matters resolved or explained by maturity, memory or nervousness.
The Tribunal accepts that there can be barriers, particularly language barriers, that can prevent an applicant from fully appreciating or understanding what was included in their protection visa application. The Tribunal also considers there are circumstances where unscrupulous third parties take advantage of applicants for visas and may include erroneous information.
However, the Tribunal does not consider that was the case here, nor does it accept the applicant’s explanations for the inclusion of claims that have appeared identically in unrelated protection visa applications.
In this regard, the Tribunal observes that with limited variation (a reference to a market over a convenience store) the applicant’s oral claims at the hearing were the same as advanced in his written application – involving online criticism of the Malaysian Royal Family and Government, threats from a group of Malays, an attack on the applicant by a group of Malays at a market/convenience store, and threats and visits to the applicant’s home.
The Tribunal finds that the claims as advanced in his own protection visa application form are contrived. They appear identically or near identically in unrelated visa applications that preceded his own visa application. Given the timing of these matters, the Tribunal is not satisfied and does not accept his claims were copied by the agent and used in other protection visa applications.
As these written claims are contrived, the Tribunal considers the significant correlation between his written claims and his oral evidence at the hearing raises serious concerns about the credibility of his claims and the reliability of his evidence. The Tribunal does not consider it plausible that there could have been any coincidence between the contrived claims in his written application and his oral claims at the hearing. The other far more plausible explanation is that the applicant knew the written claims were contrived and that he nevertheless sought to reiterate and rely on those claims before this Tribunal.
In this respect, the Tribunal considers its other concerns are relevant and reinforce its concerns about the credibility of these claims – including the difficulty reconciling his claims against the country information, concerns about the applicant’s shifting evidence relating to the perpetrators of the violence, and in particular the lack of credible corroborative evidence. If these claims were contrived, that logically explains why there would be no evidence of activities on social media, no evidence of the written threats he claims to have received, and no definitive evidence of the injuries he claims to have suffered when he went to Malaysia in 2019.
For these reasons, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s claims to have been politically active or to have shared news or criticism of the Malaysian Royal Family or Government (or any other topic) are not credible and they are not accepted. The Tribunal also finds that the applicant’s claims that he (or his family) faced threats (or threatening letters), visits, harassment, disturbance or violence for these reasons are not credible and they are not accepted.
The Tribunal also finds that the applicant’s post hearing submissions and explanations about his political profile or his past experiences, whether related to his political profile or ethnicity, are not credible and they are not accepted.
For clarity, given its assessment and credibility of these claims, the Tribunal does not accept any aspect of the applicant’s claims.
The Tribunal finds the applicant has not and would not be politically active or critical of the Malaysian Royal Family, the Malaysian Government, or anyone else, whether online or otherwise, if he returned to Malaysia. The Tribunal finds the applicant would not have any adverse political or other profile on return to Malaysia and he would face no chance or risk of harm for these reasons, or on any related basis, from the Government, the police/authorities, vigilantes, Malay groups, or any other person or group.
In view of the above, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance of the applicant facing harm or serious harm for the reasons claimed, or on any other related basis, if he returned to Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal also finds that there is not a real risk of the applicant facing significant harm for these reasons as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Malaysia.
Claims related to ethnicity
While the Tribunal has rejected the applicant’s claims related to his political opinion or profile, it does accept that he is an ethnic Chinese Malay.
Contrary to the applicant’s contentions in his post hearing submissions, the advice from DFAT is that the Chinese population in Malaysia is well established:
Chinese Malaysians remain one of the largest overseas Chinese communities in the world and are Malaysia’s second-largest ethnic group. Chinese Malaysians comprise a high proportion of the professional and educated class, are prominent in business and commerce, and tend to be wealthier than other ethnic groups in Malaysia.[8]
[8] DFAT, Country Information Report – Malaysia, 24 June 2024, 3.11

As put to the applicant at the hearing, DFAT indicates that Chinese Malaysians may face some low level discrimination and barriers in accessing employment in the civil service, study within the state tertiary system, or when opening or operating a business in the private sector.[9] The advice from DFAT does not suggest that Chinese Malaysians are at threat of violence or harm because of their ethnicity.
[9] DFAT, Country Information Report – Malaysia, 24 June 2024, 3.11 - 3.15
In response to this country information, the applicant said most of the politicians and police in Malaysia are Malay people. He indicated that a Chinese Malay person seeking to become a policeman has less than a 1 in 10 chance. He said that all the previous and current Prime Ministers are Malay, and all the major political positions are held by Malays. Even when doing business, Chinese Malaysians have to include Malays in order to do business.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that the advice did not indicate threats or violence towards ethnic Chinese. The applicant said that Chinese people have to face difficulties where they disobey the authorities or disagree with the rules and seek appeal through the legal system, and they will face jail sentences. He referred to a woman that had run a business without Malay employees, but the Malay people took her to court and challenged why there was no Malay employee in her business. He said the woman had to attend the court and explain why she did not employ ethnic Malays.
The Tribunal again put to him that this related to disruptions and legal issues, not threats or violence. The applicant said these are the issues they face in current society, and it can be expected that violence will start to occur. Later in the hearing, he referred to instances of violence against the Chinese population in Malaysia, as discussed above.
The Tribunal has found that the applicant has no political profile, and has rejected his claims that he or his family were targeted for these reasons. Given the country advice, and the Tribunal’s concerns about the credibility of his protection claims, the Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant, his mother or anyone from his family, were ever targeted for threats, harassment or violence because of their ethnicity alone.
Given there are tensions over ethnicity, the Tribunal expects there are likely instances of isolated violence between ethnic groups in Malaysia, including between Chinese and Malays, but the Tribunal considers there is no indication in the country advice that this is happening with any scope or frequency, nor has the applicant provided evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the Tribunal does not accept that he or his family have ever been the targets of such violence, and it has no reason to consider they would face a real chance or risk of such violence in the future.
As the Tribunal accepts the applicant is ethnically Chinese, and a Chinese Malay, it does accept that me may experience some official or societal discrimination for these reasons in the future. However, the Tribunal is satisfied he would not be prevented from accessing education, work, accommodation or services. The Tribunal is satisfied he would not face harm, harassment or mistreatment for these reasons, and the Tribunal considers that any discrimination he may face would be low level.
The Tribunal also considers he may not be directly impacted by the limited discrimination faced by Chinese Malaysians. He has not contended that he would pursue further education or work within the civil service. The Tribunal notes the applicant has family in Malaysia and that he is now an experienced [occupation]. The Tribunal considers the applicant is well placed to return to Malaysia to find work in the private sector, and support himself.
Having regard to the country advice, the Tribunal considers that any discrimination he may experience over the reasonably foreseeable future would not amount to or constitute serious harm. The Tribunal also considers that any discrimination he may experience would not amount to or otherwise give rise to significant harm as variously defined.

100. The Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance of the applicant facing serious harm for reasons of his ethnicity, or on any other related basis, if he returned to Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal also finds that there is not a real risk of the applicant facing significant harm for these reasons as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Malaysia.
Conclusion
101. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
102. The Tribunal is also not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
103. There is no claim or evidence to indicate the applicant can satisfy s 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act on the basis that he is a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant meets either of these two alternatives.
104. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
105. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Date of hearing: 24 April 2025
Representative for the Applicant: n/a
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…

5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…

5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…

36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…