2104037 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Papua New Guinea, sought a protection visa. The dispute arose because the applicant claimed she had not experienced past harm and did not fear future harm in Papua New Guinea, stating her application was solely to initiate a ministerial intervention process, as she was unable to apply for any other visa. This situation was complicated by Family Court orders preventing her departure from Australia with her Australian citizen child. The matter was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant would suffer serious harm if returned to Papua New Guinea due to her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's assertion that the application was made for the purpose of commencing a ministerial intervention process due to her inability to apply for any other visa and the existence of Family Court orders concerning her child.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, as she did not claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution. Furthermore, she did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), as she explicitly stated she did not fear harm in Papua New Guinea. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not satisfy section 36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.