1714374 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Papua New Guinea, sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse her protection visa application lodged in June 2016. The applicant had previously arrived in Australia in August 2015, departed in December 2015, and returned in March 2016, lodging her protection visa application upon the cessation of her previous visa. The delegate's refusal was based on the applicant not being a person in respect of whom Australia owed protection obligations.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Australia had protection obligations to the applicant. This required determining if the applicant possessed a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the five Convention reasons, as defined by section 5H(1)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or if she met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The applicant's claims included experiencing domestic and family violence, including rape, from her uncle and cousin, deprivation of basic needs, and a lack of recourse to corrupt police in Papua New Guinea, leading to a fear for her life if returned.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence presented at the hearing was evasive, incomplete, lacked detail, and was frequently implausible. This contrasted with information provided in a previous temporary visa application, where she had stated she was married with children and resided with her parents and siblings. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had been afforded a fair hearing and opportunities to present her case. Considering the applicant's inconsistent and implausible evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied that she had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, nor that she met the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not meet PIC 4020.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.