1724543 (Refugee)

The applicants, a family unit, sought protection visas in Australia. The first applicant, a Jehovah's Witness and former Elder in Papua New Guinea (PNG), claimed to have been unlawfully dismissed from his employment in 2002 after 15 years. He alleged that following his dismissal, he and his family were forced from company property by armed private security and PNG police. The applicant further claimed to have initiated legal proceedings against his former employer for wrongful suspension and termination due to his religious activities, which had been significantly delayed and complicated by the deaths of his lawyer and the presiding judge. He expressed a fear of reprisal, including being shot or killed by individuals controlled by influential persons, senior government personnel, or frustrated members of the public, should a settlement in his favour be reached. He also feared police brutality and a lack of protection from PNG state agencies, which he believed did not abide by court orders. The remaining applicants were seeking visas as members of the first applicant's family unit.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal was required to determine if the first applicant was a refugee within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Refugees Convention, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider if the applicants met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, meaning there were substantial grounds for believing that removal from Australia would result in a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also considered whether the family members met the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) as members of the same family unit as a person who would otherwise qualify for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas. It was not satisfied that any of the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee convention or the complementary protection grounds. Consequently, the applicants were unable to satisfy the requirements for the grant of the visa.