1717656 (Refugee)

The applicant, a non-citizen in Australia, sought a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The decision was made by Christine Cody.

The court was required to determine if the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm if removed from Australia to Papua New Guinea. This involved assessing the applicant's claims of intertribal violence, land disputes, domestic violence, imprisonment, fear of harm from magic, and a history of alcohol and drug use, as well as considering the credibility of his witness statements and his previous criminal offences in Australia. The court also had to consider the provisions of the Act relating to the meaning of significant harm and the circumstances in which a person would not be taken to face such a risk, including the availability of effective protection measures in a receiving country.

The court considered Ministerial Direction No. 56 and relevant policy guidelines and country information. The applicant provided post-interview submissions detailing his criminal offence in Australia, his rehabilitation efforts, and support letters. He claimed to have suffered conflict with his partner's clan, imprisonment, and threats to his life due to land disputes, and feared death, degrading treatment, torture, and execution by black magic if returned. He also expressed concern for his children's safety. The delegate had accepted some aspects of the applicant's claims, such as the existence of land disputes and accusations of sorcery in Papua New Guinea, but found the applicant's fear of harm regarding land disputes not credible, and considered his fear of black magic speculative, suggesting relatives likely died of natural causes. The delegate also noted that the applicant's reason for leaving Papua New Guinea did not suggest a motivating fear. The court's reasoning would have involved weighing the applicant's subjective fears against objective country information and assessing the credibility of his claims in light of his past conduct and the legal framework for protection visas.