2109639 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming he feared persecution in Malaysia due to his social media commentary opposing the entry of Rohingya refugees and criticising the Malaysian government's policies. He alleged he had been physically assaulted at his retail shop by individuals who threatened to kill him, had reported this to the police without action, and had subsequently been arrested and detained for seven days. Following his release, he moved to another state and closed his business, but continued to receive anonymous threats. The applicant contended that the Malaysian authorities could not and would not protect him, and that relocation within Malaysia would not provide safety.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee as defined by section 5J(1)(a) of the Act, or alternatively, whether Australia had protection obligations under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act due to a real risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia. The court also considered the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to establish his claims, as stipulated by section 5AAA of the Act.

The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient documentary evidence to support his claims. The applicant had waived his right to a hearing, thereby forfeiting an opportunity to elaborate on his allegations. The court concluded that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Furthermore, the court found no substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, including arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Consequently, the court was not satisfied that the applicant met the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, nor the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The decision under review was therefore affirmed.