1811000 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming she would suffer harm if returned to Papua New Guinea (PNG) due to past domestic violence from her Australian citizen former husband. The dispute concerned whether Australia had protection obligations towards her under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The decision was made by Senior Member Wayne Pennell of the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant's removal to PNG, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, or a real chance of suffering serious harm, thereby establishing that Australia had protection obligations towards her. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to establish her claim and noted it was not required to speculate or assist in establishing the claim.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to PNG. While acknowledging past domestic violence, the Tribunal noted that this had not occurred since 2013 and that the applicant had not presented updated statements or statutory declarations prior to the hearing. The Tribunal also found that the author of a character reference, which stated it was unsafe for the applicant to return to PNG, was not personally aware of this, but rather relied on what the applicant had told them. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

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