1715425 (Refugee)

The applicants, citizens of Papua New Guinea, sought protection visas. The delegate refused their applications, finding the primary applicant was not a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations. The applicant claimed to have suffered physical and verbal abuse, threats of violence, and alleged involvement of her de facto partner in witchcraft, leading to her children’s ill health. She also claimed the judicial system in Papua New Guinea was corrupt and that she feared her de facto partner might abduct their daughter. The delegate was not satisfied with the specificity of the domestic violence claims and noted a delay in departure from Papua New Guinea after being granted tourist visas.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Australia owed protection obligations to the applicants, either under the refugee criterion (s.36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958*) or the complementary protection criterion (s.36(2)(aa)). This required an assessment of whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Papua New Guinea. The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's credibility and the plausibility of her claims in light of available evidence and country information.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence at the hearing to be evasive, incomplete, lacking in detail, and frequently implausible. Despite acknowledging the difficult circumstances applicants for protection may face, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's statements were not coherent or plausible and ran counter to generally known facts. The Tribunal applied the principles regarding credibility assessments, including the need for a reasonable approach and the benefit of the doubt only when general credibility is established and all evidence has been checked. The Tribunal also considered the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* concerning well-founded fear of persecution and significant harm, including the possibility of relocation and the availability of effective protection measures.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that any of the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under either s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958*. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visas.