1712607 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a man from Papua New Guinea (PNG). The applicant claimed he feared physical harm from his wife's family in PNG, who demanded he pay a bride price and threatened to kill him if he did not return to PNG with his partner. The applicant also argued that PNG authorities were unreliable and corrupt, and therefore unable to offer protection. The case was heard by Michael Hawkins.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, and if not, whether he was entitled to complementary protection. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding the threats and the risk of harm he faced, as well as the capacity of PNG authorities to provide protection. The court also considered the applicant's delay in lodging his protection visa application.

The court affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion. The reasoning focused on the applicant's inconsistent evidence and the delay in lodging his application. The court applied the principle that for an applicant to be entitled to protection, there must be a real risk of significant harm, and this risk must not be capable of being mitigated by protection from the authorities of the country of origin. The court noted that the level of protection required must reduce the risk of harm to something less than a "real risk," referencing the case of *MIAC v MZYYL* [2012] FCAFC 147. The court also took into account relevant policy guidelines and country information.