1903944 (Refugee)

Case [2024] AATA 4074

1903944 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4074 (16 September 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:Ms Jennifer Nugent

CASE NUMBER:  1903944

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Papua New Guinea

MEMBER:David James

DATE:16 September 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 16 September 2024 at 11:45am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Papua New Guinea – particular social group – young woman – no familial protection – gender-based violence – physical assault – fear of killing – Wantokism – state protection – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5AAA, 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 411, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

Abebe v The Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
ABT16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 836
AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 133

Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1997] FCA 1198
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pan Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang & Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347
SZLVZ v MIAC [2008] FCA 1816

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

  1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 12 February 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

  2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Papua New Guinea (PNG), applied for the visa on 31 January 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee as defined by s 5H of the Act and was therefore not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s 36(2)(a) of the Act. The delegate was also not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to PNG, there is a real risk they…

Continue reading 1903944 (Refugee)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
1903944 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4074
Case
[2024] AATA 4074
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a young woman from Papua New Guinea (PNG), sought review of a decision to refuse her protection visa. The core of the dispute concerned whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under the Act, or if there was a real risk of significant harm upon return to PNG. The applicant claimed that as a single young woman without familial protection in PNG, she faced risks of homelessness, sexual and physical assault, and potentially death, exacerbated by the weakening of the 'wantokism' system and the inability of her elderly grandparents or struggling aunts and uncles to provide support.

The court was required to determine if the applicant possessed a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or alternatively, if there were substantial grounds to believe she would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to PNG. This involved assessing the objective likelihood of such harm, considering the applicant's personal circumstances, and evaluating the availability and effectiveness of state protection and familial support systems in PNG, particularly for single women. The court also had to consider the applicant's membership in a particular social group, defined as a young, single female from PNG lacking familial protection.

The court considered extensive documentary evidence, including country information reports from DFAT and submissions from the applicant's representatives. It noted that PNG is described as a dangerous place for women and girls, with a high prevalence of gender-based violence, often not adequately addressed by state authorities due to cultural norms and limited resources. The court found that the 'wantokism' system, while intended to provide social support, was weakening and unlikely to offer effective protection to the applicant, especially given her mother's marital status and her father's abandonment. The court also noted that the applicant's grandparents were too elderly and her aunts and uncles too impoverished to provide care. The court concluded that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm, including physical and sexual violence, and potentially threats to her life, liberty, and economic well-being, due to her status as a single female without adequate familial or state protection in PNG.

Consequently, the court set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration, indicating that a favourable decision could be made on the information before the Tribunal without the applicant needing to attend a hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The issues in this review are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five reasons set out in s 5J(1) of the Act, and there is a real chance that, if the applicant was returned to PNG, they would be persecuted for one of those reasons and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to PNG, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act.Documentary evidence before the Tribunal The Tribunal has before it documents submitted by the applicant to the Department and the Tribunal relating to the applicant’s claims for protection, which includes (but is not limited to) the following documents, which have been considered by the Tribunal:·The applicants’ protection visa application submitted on 31 January 2017, and a copy of the applicant’s bio-data page of her PNG passport;·Refugee and Immigration Legal Service (Rails) written submission, dated 31 January 2017;·RAILS written submission, dated 20 September 2018;·Statutory Declaration of [Mother A], applicant’s mother, declared on 12 October 2018 and the annexed PNG Certificate of Birth Entry in the name of [Mother A] and an undated psychological assessment report under the hand of [a named] Clinical Psychologist in relation to [Mother A];·RAILS written ‘Post Interview’ submission, dated 14 November 2018;·The applicant’s application for review of 20 February 2019 and the attached Decision Record of 12 February 2019;·The administrative and movement records of the Department relating to the applicant; ·Applicant’s Statutory declaration of 27 June 2024, in which she declares in part, that:I am [an age] year old girl. I am in [grade] at [School 1]. My favourite subjects are English and sport.I came to Australia with my brother [Brother A] when I was [age] years old.I live with my mother, [Mother A]. My mother in an Australian citizen. My brother [Brother A] is renting his won place and working in [Suburb 1]. He is a permanent resident. He holds a child visa.I don’t have any other brothers or sisters. I don’t have any contact with my father.I am not close with most relatives back in PNG, except for my mother’s parents who are tool elderly to take care of me. I say hello to my mother’s siblings (my aunts and uncles) when they ring to speak to my mother. My aunts and uncles would not be able to look after me because they have their own children to look after.My mother and I do not want me to return to PNG. I really like living here in Australia with my mother. It is very safe here compared to PNG. In PNG, girls get kidnapped, raped or killed. Also life is very difficult there for girls and women.·Applicant’s representative’s written submissions of 4 September 2024, in which in part, and as relevant, it is submitted :…Protection Claims[The applicant] is a national of Papua New Guinea (PNG), her home village is [name] in [Town 1]. [The applicant] is currently [age] years old. Without the necessary familial protection in PNG, it is submitted that [the applicant] is at risk as a single female. She is at risk of homelessness, and has a well-founded fear of sexual and physical assault. We rely on the country of origin information (COI) within PNG in support of these submissions. Since [the applicant] left Papua New Guinea when she was around [age] years of age, [she] has little memory of the time she spent in Papua New Guinea. However, prior to coming to Australia, [the applicant] lived with her brother, [Brother A], and her maternal grandparents, but was otherwise without familial support. Due to the deteriorating health and growing age of her grandparents, [the applicant] is at serious risk of harm on the basis of her gender, age and having no familial protections. [In] December 2016, [the applicant] arrived in Australia on a Visitor Visa (FA-600). She applied for a Protection Visa on 31 January 2017. Her mother, [Mother A], attended the Protection Visa interview on 21 September 2018 on her behalf……In assessing the criteria for protection, a decision maker must assess whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution, as outlined within s 5J of the Act. It is submitted that there is a real and substantial risk [the applicant] would suffer persecution for the purposes of s 5J(4), and that fear is well-founded. [The applicant] is at risk of the above-mentioned persecution by reason of her membership of a particular social group, namely, a young female from PNG. If returned to Papua New Guinea, [the applicant] would not be able to seek effective protection from the authorities as outline in s 5LA. It is submitted that country information is highly consistent with [the applicant’s] claims and indicates that the risk of her suffering harm now or in the reasonably foreseeable future is neither far-fetched nor fanciful: Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 (429) (McHugh J). It is submitted that in her personal circumstances, [the applicant] is unable to relocate to another area of PNG. In addition to and as an alternative [the applicant] is at more than remote risk of suffering the following instances of significant harm:1.arbitrary deprivation of life; and/or 2.cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment and degrading treatment; and/or 3.significant harm of the kind identified by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia……Objective Element As to the objective element, we draw the Tribunal’s attention to the following country of origin information. Human Rights Watch describes Papua New Guinea, as “one of the most dangerous places for a woman or a girl” (Human Rights Watch, World Report 2020 – Papua New Guinea (Web Report, December 2020 - Wantokism Whilst we acknowledge the social kinship system in PNG of ‘wantokism’, it is submitted that [the applicant] will not be protected within this system. As the Delegate raised in the Decision, the wantok system underpins PNG’s society and culture. As described in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (DFAT) most recent report regarding PNG: “In PNG, the overall welfare of the tribe and its members is paramount. Face-to-face relationships, inter-marriage, kinship and reciprocal exchange create strong ties to keep the tribe together. At its best, wantokism operates as a social supporting mechanism that ensures those members of the tribe less able to look after themselves are supported”Although the wantok system, through kinship ties and social bonds, provides informal and limited social protection, it is submitted that following [Mother A’s] marriage to [Mr A], she and her family are no longer viewed as belonging to [Mother A's] tribe. Through customary marriage, a woman’s rights and securities within the wantok system are given over to her husband and his tribe.Given [Mr A] abandoned [the applicant] and her brother [Brother A] in 2009, will not be able to access the protection of her father’s tribe through the wantok system if returned to PNG. [Mother A] outlined this in her Statutory Declaration dated 12 October 2018, when she stated that, “In my case, I got married but I had problems. When I went back to my village, I had no name there. I had no value there. They will treat my children in the same way. There will be no one to look after them…”…It is further noted that the wantok system is weakening, and many people are being pushed back into deeper poverty. While we accept that [the applicant] was able to be supported by her grandparents in the past, we emphasise that with her grandparents’ growing old age and declining health, it is impossible for her grandparents to care for [the applicant]. Given the average life expectancy is around 65 years old in PNG, [the applicant’s] grandparents are not in a position to provide continued protection for her in her remaining years as a child, and her future years as a young woman within PNG. It is also noted that [the applicant’s] aunts and uncles are already struggling to look after their own children, having fallen into poverty themselves. Without the cultural responsibility over [the applicant], her aunts and uncles would be both unable and unwilling to look after [the applicant]……Male ProtectionAngelica Neville, verifies this submission, in her findings that ‘being without ‘familial protection’ or a ‘male guardian’ puts women at an added risk of being assaulted in PNG’ (Angelica Neville, ‘Fleeing into persecution: sending women to PNG’ (Web page, 22 July 2013, Right Now gender based violence in PNG Archives - Right Now). Single women in PNG, in both urban and rural areas, ‘experience a palpable fear of crime…[because they are] aware that they are viewed as easier targets (Amnesty International, Papua New Guinea: Violence Against Women: Not Inevitable, Never Acceptable! September 2006 21 Papua New Guinea: Violence against women: never Inevitable, never acceptable! amnesty.org). This Tribunal (differently constituted) stated that ‘single women outside the protection of their family or relatives are at risk of violence, including sexual violence,’ (1501572 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 304 13 February 2017 at [27]). In a different decision, the Tribunal also held that single women and single mothers in PNG face discrimination and hardship (1503733 (refugee) [2017] AATA 1799 13 September 2017 at [52])Country information shows that committing acts of sexual violence against women can be considered a rite of passage for some men, noting that ‘danger comes from the Raskol gangs that rule the settlements in big towns and the capital city…[where] raping women is a ‘must’ for young members of the gang (Vlad Sokhin, Crying Meri, 2014, available at submit that [the applicant], as a single female, faces a real chance of physical and sexual violence if she is returned to Papua New Guinea, which is further heightened by the disconnection from her family…The prevalence of gender based violence in PNG is reflective of traditional and patriarchal norms such as bride prices and polygamous marriages, which are entrenched features of PNG society. This contributes to the wide range of manifestations of gender-based violence in the home, community and institutional settings (Office of the High Commissioner, UN Human Rights Office, Special Rapporteur on Violence against women finalises country mission in Papua New Guinea, 26 March 2012 We submit that the level of violence that women, as a social group, experience in Papua New Guinea society clearly establishes that the risk of [the applicant] experiencing such harm in the future could not be described as being remote, far-fetched or fanciful (Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 389, 406-7, 396-8, 428-9)…PERSECUTION…Based on the COI material above, if [the applicant] returns to Papua New Guinea, she is at risk of serious harm for the following reasons: a. She will receive threats to her personal life and liberty as a single female without male protection; b. She will be subject to physical harassment and ill-treatment as a status as a single female without male protection; c. She will be subject economic hardship due to her status as a single female without male protection. It is on this basis that we submit that [the applicant] is at risk of persecution if she were to return to Papua New Guinea. Claims for protection

Decision

Reasons for decision

The applicant was not interviewed by the Department.Delegate’s decision The delegate’s decision of 12 February 2019 to refuse the protection visa was made on the information before the delegate. The delegate did not accept that the applicant would be without familial support and protection or that she would become homeless. Therefore, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria in s 5H(1) of the Act, and therefore was not a refugee. The delegate for the same reasons was also not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to PNG, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act. Invitation to attend hearing On 7 August 2024, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a review hearing at the Brisbane Registry on 10 September 2023 at 9:30 am. This correspondence advised the applicant that the Tribunal had considered all the material before it relating to their application, but that it was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the applicant to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing. The invitation stated that if the applicant did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may make a decision on the case without further notice. On 9 September 2024, the Tribunal after careful consideration of the material before the Tribunal determined that it could make a favourable decision in relation to the applicant’s matter without the applicant having to appear before the Tribunal to give oral evidence and make arguments. The Tribunal that day then cancelled the applicant’s scheduled hearing and emailed the applicant’s representative and informed them that:The Senior Member would like to inform you that after reviewing the application he has formed the view that a favourable decision can be made on the information that is before the Tribunal without the applicant having to appear at the scheduled hearing of 10 September 2024 to give evidence and make arguments.Country information The Tribunal has taken into account the DFAT Country Information Report Papua New Guinea, 6 September 2022, as relevant, including the information as to ‘Wantokism’, where it is explained that:‘Wantokism’ is a system of social kinship, welfare and mutual obligation derived from PNG’s traditional tribal-based society. Wantokism affects most aspects of contemporary life in PNG, including in business and government. In the Tok Pisin language, Wantok means ‘One Talk’, referring to the language of the tribe or clan to which a person belongs. In PNG, the overall welfare of the tribe and its members is paramount. Face-to-face relationships, inter-marriage, kinship and reciprocal exchange create strong ties to keep the tribe together. At its best, wantokism operates as a social supporting mechanism that ensures those members of the tribe less able to look after themselves are supported. Under the heading of ‘Women’ from 3.17 to 3.25, it is reported at 3.19 to 3.20 and at 3.22 and 3.25, that:DFAT assesses that women across PNG face a high risk of societal discrimination due to long-standing traditional values and gender roles which restrict their ability to fully participate in the community and workforce. DFAT assesses that women are unable to participate fully in politics in PNG due to deeply held cultural traditions and institutional restrictions. DFAT further assesses that women in PNG face a high risk of gender-based violence, regardless of their social status. Women living in Highlands provinces are at particular risk, although violence against women occurs nationwide. Women who are subjected to gender-based violence are unlikely to be able to avail themselves of adequate state protection or support services.‘Bride price’ payment remains a common cultural practice in PNG (including among elites). A bride price is a sum of money ranging from PGK2,500 (about AUD1,050) to PGK300,000 (about AUD126, 490) paid to the woman's family by the groom or his family. Bride price is a long-standing Melanesian tradition, and is intended to strengthen familial bonds. However, in recent years it has become increasingly monetised and led to a sense of ‘ownership’ of wives in some cases, giving husbands a sense of entitlement which can be seen as permitting violence. Furthermore, an obligation to pay back bride price in the case of marriage breakdown has complicated the ability of women to leave violent relationships, with their own families sometimes pressuring women to return to their husbands to avoid triggering such an obligation…FSV is still seen by many police officers (and many men in PNG) as a private matter in which the state should not intervene. Levels of GBV by police officers themselves are high. Police are more likely to act on complaints about perpetrators outside the family, if they act at all. However, the RPNGC has made some progress in recent years, establishing Family and Sexual Violence Units (FSVU) in every province. Sources told DFAT FSVUs represent progress in the policing of GBV, especially with regard to the willingness to investigate and make arrests, and in their connectedness to other services. However, there are not enough FSVUs to respond adequately to the scale of the problem. There are only 106 FSVU officers across the country and at the time of publication, there is a single FSVU officer in Tari, capital of the Highlands province of Hela, to cover the whole province (population of around 250,000). FSVU officers are typically subject to the same resource constraints as the rest of the RPNGC…While women’s refuges exist in PNG, they are insufficient for the level of GBV that exists. Sources report that Port Moresby, a city of 800,000 people, has only six safe houses for women suffering GBV, open to the public, and mostly run by faith-based organisations. Some of these safe houses have as few as two rooms, one for the survivor and one for a carer, while others can accommodate up to 10 survivors in a shared room. The situation for abused children is even tighter, with very few safe houses able to accommodate unaccompanied children. And under the heading of ‘Police’ from 5.3 to 5.6, it is reported at 5.3 and 5.6 that:The Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary (RPNGC) is the national police force responsible for the investigation of crime and maintaining internal security in all regions of the country. At the time of independence in 1975, police services were estimated to only cover around 10 per cent of the country’s total land area and 40 per cent of the population. Since then, the size of the RPNGC has increased by only 30 per cent, while the overall population has more than quadrupled. In 2022, the strength of the RPNGC is approximately 5,500 personnel. Failure to respond to requests for assistance and persistent reports of police abuse have led to low levels of public confidence in the RPNGC…DFAT assesses that the capacity of the RPNGC and other security forces such as the PNGDF to provide protection for vulnerable cohorts is typically severely limited; such protection will often only be provided following a large public outcry.FINDINGS AND REASONS

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Section 36(2)(aa) refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. The ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition: MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505.Mandatory considerations In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs (the Department), and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCEIssues The issues in this review are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five reasons set out in s 5J(1) of the Act, and there is a real chance that, if the applicant was returned to PNG, they would be persecuted for one of those reasons and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to PNG, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act.Documentary evidence before the Tribunal The Tribunal has before it documents submitted by the applicant to the Department and the Tribunal relating to the applicant’s claims for protection, which includes (but is not limited to) the following documents, which have been considered by the Tribunal:·The applicants’ protection visa application submitted on 31 January 2017, and a copy of the applicant’s bio-data page of her PNG passport;·Refugee and Immigration Legal Service (Rails) written submission, dated 31 January 2017;·RAILS written submission, dated 20 September 2018;·Statutory Declaration of [Mother A], applicant’s mother, declared on 12 October 2018 and the annexed PNG Certificate of Birth Entry in the name of [Mother A] and an undated psychological assessment report under the hand of [a named] Clinical Psychologist in relation to [Mother A];·RAILS written ‘Post Interview’ submission, dated 14 November 2018;·The applicant’s application for review of 20 February 2019 and the attached Decision Record of 12 February 2019;·The administrative and movement records of the Department relating to the applicant; ·Applicant’s Statutory declaration of 27 June 2024, in which she declares in part, that:I am [an age] year old girl. I am in [grade] at [School 1]. My favourite subjects are English and sport.I came to Australia with my brother [Brother A] when I was [age] years old.I live with my mother, [Mother A]. My mother in an Australian citizen. My brother [Brother A] is renting his won place and working in [Suburb 1]. He is a permanent resident. He holds a child visa.I don’t have any other brothers or sisters. I don’t have any contact with my father.I am not close with most relatives back in PNG, except for my mother’s parents who are tool elderly to take care of me. I say hello to my mother’s siblings (my aunts and uncles) when they ring to speak to my mother. My aunts and uncles would not be able to look after me because they have their own children to look after.My mother and I do not want me to return to PNG. I really like living here in Australia with my mother. It is very safe here compared to PNG. In PNG, girls get kidnapped, raped or killed. Also life is very difficult there for girls and women.·Applicant’s representative’s written submissions of 4 September 2024, in which in part, and as relevant, it is submitted :…Protection Claims[The applicant] is a national of Papua New Guinea (PNG), her home village is [name] in [Town 1]. [The applicant] is currently [age] years old. Without the necessary familial protection in PNG, it is submitted that [the applicant] is at risk as a single female. She is at risk of homelessness, and has a well-founded fear of sexual and physical assault. We rely on the country of origin information (COI) within PNG in support of these submissions. Since [the applicant] left Papua New Guinea when she was around [age] years of age, [she] has little memory of the time she spent in Papua New Guinea. However, prior to coming to Australia, [the applicant] lived with her brother, [Brother A], and her maternal grandparents, but was otherwise without familial support. Due to the deteriorating health and growing age of her grandparents, [the applicant] is at serious risk of harm on the basis of her gender, age and having no familial protections. [In] December 2016, [the applicant] arrived in Australia on a Visitor Visa (FA-600). She applied for a Protection Visa on 31 January 2017. Her mother, [Mother A], attended the Protection Visa interview on 21 September 2018 on her behalf……In assessing the criteria for protection, a decision maker must assess whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution, as outlined within s 5J of the Act. It is submitted that there is a real and substantial risk [the applicant] would suffer persecution for the purposes of s 5J(4), and that fear is well-founded. [The applicant] is at risk of the above-mentioned persecution by reason of her membership of a particular social group, namely, a young female from PNG. If returned to Papua New Guinea, [the applicant] would not be able to seek effective protection from the authorities as outline in s 5LA. It is submitted that country information is highly consistent with [the applicant’s] claims and indicates that the risk of her suffering harm now or in the reasonably foreseeable future is neither far-fetched nor fanciful: Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 (429) (McHugh J). It is submitted that in her personal circumstances, [the applicant] is unable to relocate to another area of PNG. In addition to and as an alternative [the applicant] is at more than remote risk of suffering the following instances of significant harm:1.arbitrary deprivation of life; and/or 2.cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment and degrading treatment; and/or 3.significant harm of the kind identified by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia……Objective Element As to the objective element, we draw the Tribunal’s attention to the following country of origin information. Human Rights Watch describes Papua New Guinea, as “one of the most dangerous places for a woman or a girl” (Human Rights Watch, World Report 2020 – Papua New Guinea (Web Report, December 2020 - Wantokism Whilst we acknowledge the social kinship system in PNG of ‘wantokism’, it is submitted that [the applicant] will not be protected within this system. As the Delegate raised in the Decision, the wantok system underpins PNG’s society and culture. As described in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (DFAT) most recent report regarding PNG: “In PNG, the overall welfare of the tribe and its members is paramount. Face-to-face relationships, inter-marriage, kinship and reciprocal exchange create strong ties to keep the tribe together. At its best, wantokism operates as a social supporting mechanism that ensures those members of the tribe less able to look after themselves are supported”Although the wantok system, through kinship ties and social bonds, provides informal and limited social protection, it is submitted that following [Mother A’s] marriage to [Mr A], she and her family are no longer viewed as belonging to [Mother A's] tribe. Through customary marriage, a woman’s rights and securities within the wantok system are given over to her husband and his tribe.Given [Mr A] abandoned [the applicant] and her brother [Brother A] in 2009, will not be able to access the protection of her father’s tribe through the wantok system if returned to PNG. [Mother A] outlined this in her Statutory Declaration dated 12 October 2018, when she stated that, “In my case, I got married but I had problems. When I went back to my village, I had no name there. I had no value there. They will treat my children in the same way. There will be no one to look after them…”…It is further noted that the wantok system is weakening, and many people are being pushed back into deeper poverty. While we accept that [the applicant] was able to be supported by her grandparents in the past, we emphasise that with her grandparents’ growing old age and declining health, it is impossible for her grandparents to care for [the applicant]. Given the average life expectancy is around 65 years old in PNG, [the applicant’s] grandparents are not in a position to provide continued protection for her in her remaining years as a child, and her future years as a young woman within PNG. It is also noted that [the applicant’s] aunts and uncles are already struggling to look after their own children, having fallen into poverty themselves. Without the cultural responsibility over [the applicant], her aunts and uncles would be both unable and unwilling to look after [the applicant]……Male ProtectionAngelica Neville, verifies this submission, in her findings that ‘being without ‘familial protection’ or a ‘male guardian’ puts women at an added risk of being assaulted in PNG’ (Angelica Neville, ‘Fleeing into persecution: sending women to PNG’ (Web page, 22 July 2013, Right Now gender based violence in PNG Archives - Right Now). Single women in PNG, in both urban and rural areas, ‘experience a palpable fear of crime…[because they are] aware that they are viewed as easier targets (Amnesty International, Papua New Guinea: Violence Against Women: Not Inevitable, Never Acceptable! September 2006 21 Papua New Guinea: Violence against women: never Inevitable, never acceptable! amnesty.org). This Tribunal (differently constituted) stated that ‘single women outside the protection of their family or relatives are at risk of violence, including sexual violence,’ (1501572 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 304 13 February 2017 at [27]). In a different decision, the Tribunal also held that single women and single mothers in PNG face discrimination and hardship (1503733 (refugee) [2017] AATA 1799 13 September 2017 at [52])Country information shows that committing acts of sexual violence against women can be considered a rite of passage for some men, noting that ‘danger comes from the Raskol gangs that rule the settlements in big towns and the capital city…[where] raping women is a ‘must’ for young members of the gang (Vlad Sokhin, Crying Meri, 2014, available at submit that [the applicant], as a single female, faces a real chance of physical and sexual violence if she is returned to Papua New Guinea, which is further heightened by the disconnection from her family…The prevalence of gender based violence in PNG is reflective of traditional and patriarchal norms such as bride prices and polygamous marriages, which are entrenched features of PNG society. This contributes to the wide range of manifestations of gender-based violence in the home, community and institutional settings (Office of the High Commissioner, UN Human Rights Office, Special Rapporteur on Violence against women finalises country mission in Papua New Guinea, 26 March 2012 We submit that the level of violence that women, as a social group, experience in Papua New Guinea society clearly establishes that the risk of [the applicant] experiencing such harm in the future could not be described as being remote, far-fetched or fanciful (Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 389, 406-7, 396-8, 428-9)…PERSECUTION…Based on the COI material above, if [the applicant] returns to Papua New Guinea, she is at risk of serious harm for the following reasons: a. She will receive threats to her personal life and liberty as a single female without male protection; b. She will be subject to physical harassment and ill-treatment as a status as a single female without male protection; c. She will be subject economic hardship due to her status as a single female without male protection. It is on this basis that we submit that [the applicant] is at risk of persecution if she were to return to Papua New Guinea. Claims for protection