1925901 (Refugee)

This matter concerned two applicants, citizens of Papua New Guinea, who sought protection visas in Australia. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, either as refugees or by owing complementary protection, or if they were members of the same family unit as such a person. The decision was made by Tamara Hamilton-Noy, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants were owed protection as 'refugees' under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or whether they were owed complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm if removed from Australia. The Tribunal also considered whether the second applicant, being in a relationship with the first applicant, qualified as a member of the same family unit under section 36(2)(c).

The Tribunal accepted the applicants' evidence regarding their de facto relationship and their citizenship of Papua New Guinea. It found that the first applicant met the criterion in section 36(2)(aa) and the second applicant met the criterion in section 36(2)(a). The Tribunal concluded that the harm feared by the first applicant from the second applicant's husband, stemming from a history of family violence, a culture of payback, and bride price payments, amounted to significant harm. The Tribunal also considered that such harm was systematic and discriminatory, and that effective protection measures would not be available. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the decision for reconsideration, directing that the first applicant satisfies section 36(2)(aa) and the second applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a).