The burden of proof lies on the applicant to demonstrate statelessness to qualify for citizenship under relevant constitutional provisions.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court in Malaya dismissing the judicial review application of the appellant which inter alia sought the following reliefs:

a. an order of certiorari to quash the respondents' decision dated 8 March 2019 rejecting the appellant's citizenship application under art 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution read with para 1(e) Part II, Second Schedule of the ;

b. a declaration recognizing the appellant as a citizen by operation of law under Second Schedule, Part II, s 1(e) art 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution ;

c. an order of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issue a MyKad or Certificate of Confirmation of Citizenship that recognizes the appellant as a Malaysian citizen by operation of law under art 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution ; and

d. a declaration that the respondents have breached the appellant's fundamental rights provided under the Federal Constitution and other provisions of the law.

[2] After careful consideration of oral and written submissions of parties, appeal records as well as relevant authorities, we found no merits in this appeal. We therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the learned High Court judge. The grounds of our decision are set out below.

Factual Background

[3] The appellant was born on 3 June 1986 at the Cherating Refugee Camp, Kuantan, Pahang. Both her parents were refugees from Cambodia, and at the time of the appellant's birth they were not Malaysian citizens. They have since been naturalised as citizens of Malaysia. Since birth, the appellant has lived in Malaysia and is now a permanent resident.

[4] The appellant applied for Malaysian citizenship pursuant to art 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution read together with s 1(e) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the , which was rejected on 8 March 2019. This is the decision that the appellant applied to quash by way of an order of certiorari and for an order of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issue the MyKad or Certificate of Confirmation of Citizenship that recognizes the appellant as a Malaysian citizen by operation of law under art 14(1)(b) of the in this judicial review application.

Issues Before The High Court

[5] The appellant's contention is that once the requirements under art 14(1) (b) read together with s 1(e) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution are met, she is automatically a citizen of Malaysia by operation of law. The appellant had referred to the case of Foo Toon Aik v. Ketua Pendaftar Kelahiran Dan Kematian Malaysia , [2012] 4 CLJ 613, HC in support of that contention. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all requirements under s 1 (e) of Part II of the Second Schedule have been met and as such she is a citizen of Malaysia by operation of law under art 14(1)(b) of the .

[6] There were two primary issues for determination by the High Court, namely:

i. whether s 1(e) of Part II of the Second Schedule, and art 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution were applicable to the appellant; and

ii. whether the burden of proof lies on the appellant to establish on a balance of probabilities that the appellant was not born a citizen of any country for the purposes of s 1(e) of Part II of the Second Schedule.

Findings And Decision Of The High Court

[7] The High Court held that the appellant had the burden to prove that:

(i) she was born in Malaysia after Malaysia day; and

(ii) that she was stateless at the time of birth.

[8] The learned High Court judge made a finding that the appellant had failed to fulfill the requir