1916868 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant claimed he had to leave Papua New Guinea (PNG) due to a well-founded fear of persecution arising from his girlfriend's suicide. He alleged that his girlfriend's family blamed him for her death and were seeking revenge, intending to kill him. The applicant also sought complementary protection, asserting a real risk of significant harm if returned to PNG.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under the Act, or if there was a real chance of persecution upon return to PNG. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to PNG, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined in the Act. The court also considered the relevance of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information assessments from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The court noted that the delegate had refused the visa based on a lack of credibility in the applicant's claims and was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for a refugee or faced a real risk of significant harm. The applicant provided a letter from a tribal peace mediator suggesting the situation was tense and recommending the applicant remain in Australia due to his status as a person of interest in his girlfriend's death. The court also considered country information indicating frequent outbreaks of tribal violence in PNG, often resulting in death and displacement, and the limited capacity of the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary to provide protection. The court applied the "real risk" test for significant harm, which it equated to the "real chance" test for well-founded fear.

The decision under review was affirmed.