1918523 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse her protection visa. The dispute concerned whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Papua New Guinea (PNG). The matter was heard by 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 Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and whether there was a real chance of such persecution upon return to PNG. Alternatively, the Tribunal 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 section 36(2A) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered extensive documentary evidence, including the applicant's protection visa application, passport, statutory declarations, medical certificates, and submissions from her representatives. The Tribunal noted that the delegate had rejected the applicant's claims due to a lack of detail and substantiation. However, during the review hearing, the applicant, with the assistance of interpreters and her solicitor, adopted her fifteen-page statutory declaration as her evidence. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's anxiety and limited education, and the process by which her declaration was taken and confirmed. The Tribunal applied the "real risk" test for significant harm, noting it imposed the same standard as the "real chance" test for well-founded fear, referencing *MIAC v SZQRB* (2013) 210 FCR 505.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims were credible and that the decision under review should be remitted.