1913717 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse her protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Papua New Guinea (PNG). The matter was before the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Act, and if so, whether there was a real chance of such persecution upon return to PNG. Alternatively, if the applicant did not meet the criteria for refugee status, the Tribunal was required to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to PNG, the applicant would suffer significant harm as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of a long-standing family feud stemming from jealousy over her father's ability to work and educate his children, which allegedly led to threats, harassment, and the death of her brother. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies and issues with the documentary evidence provided, including concerns about the authenticity of a post-mortem examination order and a coroner's report, and the applicant's own admission of altering a document. While acknowledging the applicant's stated fear and the evidence of some community leaders and police regarding threats, the Tribunal found the applicant to be an unreliable and untruthful witness. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, finding her descriptions of alleged past incidents to be vague and lacking sufficient corroboration. The Tribunal also considered the delay in applying for protection in Australia and the fact that the applicant's daughter was an Australian citizen.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.