1512766 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by the first-named Applicant, who claimed to fear harm if returned to Papua New Guinea. The Applicant alleged a history of domestic violence and abuse by her husband and his relatives, including physical assaults and threats of death. She also claimed that the authorities in Papua New Guinea would not provide her with effective protection. The application was before the Tribunal for review.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant was a refugee within the meaning of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether she could establish membership of a "particular social group" and a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. The Tribunal was required to consider whether the proposed social groups, such as "women in Papua New Guinea" or "women in Papua New Guinea subjected to domestic violence," were sufficiently identifiable and distinct. A further issue was whether the Applicant could avoid harm by relocating within Papua New Guinea.

The Tribunal considered extensive country information regarding domestic violence in Papua New Guinea, which indicated alarmingly high rates of family and sexual violence, with significant failures in the state's protection system. While acknowledging discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Applicant's evidence, the Tribunal accepted core aspects of her account, including her marriage, discovery of her husband's affair, subsequent violence, and her daughter's burn injuries. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the Applicant would likely be denied protection by the Papua New Guinean authorities due to their systemic failures and a tendency to view domestic violence as a private matter. The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant belonged to the particular social group of "women in Papua New Guinea who have left an abusive domestic relationship" and that she could not avoid harm by internal relocation.

The Tribunal concluded that the first-named Applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for the Convention reason of membership of a particular social group and that effective protection was unavailable. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the first-named Applicant satisfied the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal also found that the second to sixth-named Applicants, as members of the same family unit, also satisfied the criteria. The matter was remitted for reconsideration with directions that the Applicants satisfy the relevant sections of the *Migration Act*.