1917755 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by a primary applicant and two secondary applicants, who were her children. The primary applicant claimed she had a well-founded fear of persecution in Papua New Guinea (PNG) due to domestic violence, threats from her ex-husband, and a lack of protection from authorities or her family. She also sought complementary protection, alleging a real risk of significant harm if returned to PNG.

The court was required to determine whether the primary applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under the Act, and if there was a real chance of such persecution upon return to PNG. Alternatively, 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.

The court considered the applicant's claims of abuse by her ex-husband and his family, her attempts to seek police protection which were thwarted by bribery, and threats made against her and her legal representative. It also noted her fear for her life and that of her children, the lack of support from her family who believed she had brought shame upon them, and her ex-husband's influence in the community which would prevent her from subsisting or building a life in PNG. The court acknowledged the evidence presented, including statements from her lawyer, police reports, and country information, and applied the legal standard that a "real risk" of significant harm imposes the same standard as a "real chance" of persecution.

The decision under review was remitted.