2114777 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by Malaysian nationals of Indian ethnicity who identified as Christian. The applicants claimed they faced persecution in Malaysia due to their religious beliefs and missionary work, which involved outreach to indigenous communities. They alleged that their family had experienced threats and violence, including incidents involving angry Muslim groups and damage to their property, and that their children had been bullied at school. The decision under review was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The Refugee Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm in Malaysia, such that Australia had protection obligations towards them. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess the credibility of the applicants' claims regarding the incidents they alleged constituted persecution, and whether these incidents, if proven, were for a Convention reason. The Tribunal also considered the applicants' outreach and proselytisation activities in Australia and their genuineness.

The Tribunal found significant credibility concerns with the applicants' evidence, particularly concerning several alleged incidents of persecution. For example, the Tribunal questioned the husband's account of an incident where he claimed to have exited a vehicle to confront an armed group, deeming it not credible given the perceived danger. Further inconsistencies were noted in the husband's and wife's accounts of other incidents, including the circumstances surrounding their decision to leave Malaysia. The Tribunal applied the principle that applicants bear the onus of providing sufficient detail and evidence to establish their claims, and that the Tribunal is not obliged to make the case for them or uncritically accept all allegations.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the adult applicants met the criteria for protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the relevant Act. However, it found that their young adult children were members of the same family unit and their entitlement to a protection visa was contingent on the outcome of the adult applicants' application. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the decision under review.