1723953 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant, a male citizen of Papua New Guinea who identified as "mixed-race," claimed he feared persecution upon return to Papua New Guinea due to his ethnicity, lack of family support, economic hardship, and the general security situation. The applicant had a history of holding various visas for Australia and had previously applied unsuccessfully for Australian citizenship.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to determine if Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant, either because he was a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution in Papua New Guinea, or on complementary protection grounds, meaning there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm if removed from Australia. The Tribunal also considered, but the applicant did not pursue, the criterion of being a member of the same family unit as a person who meets these protection obligations.

The Tribunal considered country information reports on Papua New Guinea and the applicant's claims regarding harassment, intimidation, and lack of police protection. It found no evidence of systematic or discriminatory conduct against "mixed-race" individuals in Papua New Guinea. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would be unable to subsist in Papua New Guinea, nor that the police or security forces would deliberately withhold protection. It concluded that the general security situation in Papua New Guinea did not present a real risk of harm to the applicant due to his ethnicity or any other reason, and therefore Australia did not have protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee or entitled to complementary protection, nor that he was a member of the same family unit as a person who met those criteria.