2118967 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1836

2118967 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1836 (27 August 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2118967
Tribunal:General Member G Sammon
Date:27 August 2025

Place:Sydney
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I, General Member G Sammon, certify that this is the Tribunal’s statement of decision and statement of reasons.
Statement made on 27 August 2025 at 8:09 AM.

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Solomon Islands – relationship with woman from rival tribe – women used to lure and trap rivals – tribal conflict over land ownership – hit over the head –fears violence from rival tribe’s criminal gangs – delay in applying for protection – inconsistent claims – applied for visa prior to violent attack – did not flee the country immediately after attack – visa expired – illegal immigrant – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J–5LA, 36, 56, 57, 65, 369, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs[1] (the Delegate) on 10 December 2021 to refuse to grant the Applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
[1] As was the then Minister’s then title.
The Applicant who claims to be a national of the Solomon Islands, applied for the visa on 10 December 2018. The Delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the Applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia had obligations for a protection visa under s 36(2)(a) as a ‘refugee’, as that term is defined in the Act[2] or for 'complementary protection’ under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
[2] Section 5H.
In summary, the basis for the Applicant’s claim for a protection visa was that he would be harmed if he was to return to the Solomon Islands, because he had entered into a relationship with a woman there who was from a rival tribal group.
The Applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 June 2025 to give evidence and present submissions in support of his claim for a protection visa. He had provided a statement to the Tribunal dated 10 June 2025 by his brother, [Sibling A], who still lives in the Solomon Islands. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Sibling A] at a subsequent hearing of the tribunal, on 30 July 2025. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the availability of an interpreter in the Pidgin and English languages, although both the Applicant and his brother were sufficiently fluent in English not to require the interpreter's assistance.
The Applicant made his application to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 13 December 2021, under the provisions of the Migration Act and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). The application may continue to be heard by the Administrative Review Tribunal under transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth).
BACKGROUND
The Applicant’s application for a protection visa
The Delegate accepted that the Applicant is a citizen of the Solomon Islands and that is verified by a passport issued to him by the Solomon Islands and provided both to the Delegate and the Tribunal. I agree with that aspect of the Delegate’s decision. The Applicant’s previous passport provided to the department which administers the Act (the Department) expired in 2022. The Applicant’s current passport, provided to the Tribunal at the hearing, was issued on 3 September 2024, and establishes that the Applicant was born in [year].
In the Applicant’s application for a protection visa, in response to a question why he left the Solomon Islands, he said that there had been conflict between his village in the Solomon Islands, [Village 1], and the neighbouring village, [Village 2]. He said that the [Village 2] people did not own a lot of land and they had been attempting to take land from the Applicant’s tribal group and restricting people from the Applicant’s village from entering the surrounding land, sea or marketplace for 'threat of death'. The Applicant said that he was especially targeted as his father is the chief of [Village 1].
He said that in 2014, he met a girl, whom I shall name as '[Ms A]', in the marketplace over which there was still conflict. He said that he fell in love with [Ms A], but they had to keep their relationship a secret, for fear of persecution by the [Village 2] people.
He continued that 'criminal gangs' within [Village 2] found out about the relationship. He said they ‘attended his home and confronted him with bows, arrows and spears’. They hit him over the head, however he managed to escape.
The Applicant said that he then escaped to another village of [Village 3][3] at the home of an aunt’s friend. He then stayed at another friend’s home in Honiara but said it was not safe there and the 'criminal gangs' were still looking for him. He then said that after one month of residing in Honiara, he obtained a visa and left the Solomon Islands.
[3] This is likely to be a spelling error for the town of [Town 1], on the island of [island], from where the Applicant comes. However, I will continue with the spelling ‘[Village 3]’, since that is the spelling adopted by the Applicant.
In response to a question on the application form for a protection visa about what he thought would happen to him if he returned to the Solomon Islands, the Applicant said that he believed that he would be killed if he returned and also believed that returning and hiding would place his family at risk of harm again.
In response to a question in his application for a protection visa about whether he thought that the authorities in the Solomon Islands would protect him if he went back there, he answered in the negative. He provided further details on that response, that he, his aunt and his aunt's friend all attempted to obtain help from the authorities and they provided the authorities with all the information regarding the incident. However, he said that the authorities told them that the most the Applicant could do was to remain in hiding, and that if anything more ‘serious’ happens, they would intervene.
The application form for the protection visa also asked the Applicant if he thought he could relocate within the Solomon Islands to an area where he would not be harmed and he answered that question in the negative. In providing further details about that response, the Applicant said that the:
criminal gang is very large and dominates most of the villages and provinces in the country.
He said that he knows those people personally and believes they 'have a very dangerous nature'. The Applicant said that he thought that no matter where he attempted to relocate, the criminal gang will eventually know of his location.
After the Applicant lodged his application for a protection visa with the Department, on 6 September 2021, the Department requested that he provide more information about his claims and in particular, about:
(a)further details on the conflict between the Applicant’s village and [Village 2];
(b)the Applicant’s relationship with [Ms A];
(c)the incident in which he was hit over the head; and
(d)why it took the Applicant almost three years and 11 months after arriving in Australia to make his application for a protection visa.
Applicant’s ‘Statement of claims’ document in response to an invitation under s 56 of the Migration Act
On 8 October 2021, the Applicant provided a further 'Statement of claims’ through his then representative. The Statement of claims elaborates on his application for a protection visa and is largely consistent with that earlier document.
On the background to the tribal conflict, he said that his family and he are from the village of [Village 1] and belong to [Tribe 1]. The people from [Village 2] are also known as [Tribe 2]. The Applicant said that historically, they were a tribe of people which had no village or area in which to reside in the Solomon Islands. He said that they were large in numbers and now considered to be a majority in the Solomon Islands. He said that the ethnic conflict is historic and ongoing to the present day.
He said that the conflict between the [Village 2] people and his village of [Village 1] was one that related to land and land ownership. He said that his family owned the coastal land and areas in their village where most of the village’s livelihood was contained, such as the fishing industry. He said that the [Village 2] people had been trying to 'intrude into our village and take our land and our livelihoods.’
The Applicant continued that the [Village 2] people did that all over the Solomon Islands, not just in [Village 1]. He said that the [Village 2] people have a wide reach across the Islands with jobs as government officials, lawyers, and other high-profile positions. They have been successful in dominating the Islands.
In 2014, the Applicant said, the tensions between the two villages was at a high, and conflict was common. He said that the [Village 2] people would use their women to attract and seduce the [Village 1] men so that 'they could trap us and kill us’. The Applicant said that he first met [Ms A] at the marketplace and approached her and got to know her. He said that her family had 'set this up as a trap initially, but we truly fell in love’. They had to keep their relationship a secret because both of their families would not be accepting of it. He said that they would arrange to meet in the afternoons.
On the incident which led to the Applicant being wounded, he said that [in] September 2014, [Ms A] and he agreed to meet 'at our usual place' but [Ms A] did not arrive. He said that he was ambushed by several men who were her relatives. Her brothers and her cousins had started to suspect that they were truly in a relationship with one another. He said that [Ms A] had been hit and abused by her family members for coming out to see him that day.
The Applicant said that he had been standing and waiting near the main entrance of his village when several men approached him holding spears and axes. That is an inconsistency with the version provided in the application for a protection visa, when he said that the men attended the Applicant's home. However, the Applicant went on to say in the Statement of claims that a man whom he named in that document and whom I will call '[Mr A]’, who was the first cousin of [Ms A], hit him over the head with a long wooden stick after confronting the Applicant about the relationship with [Ms A], which the Applicant denied.
The Applicant said that he fell to the ground after he was hit on the head and was taken to his family by the villagers. He said that he told his father the truth about his relationship with [Ms A]. He said that his father was 'incredibly angry' at him for putting his family in greater danger than they already were. He said that his father told him that he could not stay in [Village 1] anymore because it would be too dangerous and that was when the Applicant’s father arranged for him to escape to [Village 3], to his aunt’s friend’s home. He then left for Honiara.
On reporting the assault to the authorities, the Applicant said in the Statement of claims that his family had tried to report the incident to the police, but the police did not take the matter seriously. The Applicant said that the police advised that he should remain in hiding 'as there was nothing they could do'. The Applicant said that the [Village 2] people 'hold a high number of the positions in the police force and the government' and he was too afraid to leave the house in Honiara, as he knew no one in there and could not be sure whether someone was a [Village 2 person] or not.
The Applicant offered an explanation about the reason for the delay in making his application for protection visa in the Statement of claims. He said when he first arrived in Australia, he did not know anyone and had no knowledge of migration processes. He said that his aunt's friend had ‘taken care of his application’. He said that he was aware that he applied for a protection visa three years and 11 months after his initial arrival in Australia but did not know what a protection visa was, nor that it was an option for someone in his situation. He said as he gradually made friends within the community and told them his story, they told him what a protection visa was. He said his friend referred him to the migration agent whom the Applicant subsequently engaged.[4] The Applicant said upon seeking migration advice, he applied for a protection visa as soon as he was aware that he was eligible to be considered for one, given his circumstances.
The Department's letter to the Applicant under s 57 of the Migration Act
[4] But no longer acted for the Applicant by the date of the Tribunal hearing.
After receipt of the Applicant’s Statement of claims document, the Department sent the Applicant a letter dated 3 November 2021, under s 57 of the Migration Act to advise the Applicant that the Department had received information which could be considered to be a reason for refusing to grant the Applicant a protection visa.
The relevant information that the Department had received which it considered could lead to an adverse decision to the Applicant on his application for a protection visa was his application for a visitor visa which he used to come to Australia in the first instance.
In particular, the Applicant’s application for a Visitor (FA-600) visa was lodged on 15 August 2014 and the visa was granted on 2 September 2014. The s 57 letter stated that information was relevant because the date of that visa lodgement was inconsistent with the sequence of events outlined in his statement that he was attacked [in] September 2014, which was after the date of application for the visitor visa.
Further, the s 57 letter stated that in his Statement of claims document, he described a conversation with his father after he said he was attacked, in which his father told him he could not stay in [Village 1] anymore and made arrangements for him to escape to [Village 3].
The inconsistency identified by the 57 letter, is that in the Applicant’s application for the visitor visa made on 15 August 2014, he declared that his father was dead and that his mother was a widow. The s 57 letter stated the inconsistency could lead to an adverse credibility finding which may result in his application for a protection visa being refused.
A third inconsistency identified by the s 57 letter was that in the Applicant’s application for a protection visa, he gave his relationship status as 'never married'. However, in the application for the visitor visa, he declared a spouse, '[Ms B]'. Further information that the Department had, indicated that he had made multiple financial transactions to an individual '[Name 1]' and ‘[Name 2]’ between 2015 and 2020, in addition to multiple other financial transactions with other individuals in the Solomon Islands. As well as the inconsistency, the s 57 letter stated that it may indicate the Applicant's intention to remain in Australia to provide financial support to a partner and/or other individuals. The s 57 letter gave the Applicant the opportunity to comment on those matters.
Applicant’s response to s 57 letter
The Applicant provided a response to the s 57 letter to the Department through his migration agent, on 10 December 2021. On the issue about potential inconsistencies between the date the Applicant lodged his application for a visitor visa, and the date of the ambush he alleges, the submission was that the Applicant had provided his migration agent with an 'estimation as to the date of the ambush but he has no accurate recollection of the date in question’.
The submission continued that the Applicant maintained that the ambush took place prior to his application for a visitor visa, but added the event in question occurred approximately seven years before the submission, and the Applicant had significant difficulty recalling the date and made a rough judgement.
The Applicant’s submission then commented on the possible inconsistencies identified in the Department’s s 57 letter. First, on the application for a visitor visa stating that the Applicant’s father was deceased, and that he had a spouse by the name of ‘[Ms B]’, the submission stated that this information was an error and the family information had been incorrectly provided to the Department.
The submission confirmed that the Applicant's father was still alive (as at the date of the submission) and that the Applicant had never been married nor had a previous spouse. The submission stated that the Applicant had no involvement in lodgement of his visitor visa application. Instead, it was completed by the Applicant’s family friend who was named in the documents, and whom I will refer to as '[Friend A]' with whom the Applicant stayed in Honiara when 'in hiding'. [Friend A] had been fearful that the Applicant's presence at his residence would place him in danger and had made all the arrangements necessary to facilitate the Applicant’s travel to Australia.
As to the records of payments made to the Solomon Islands, the written submission was that [Ms B] was the Applicant’s first cousin. The explanation for the payments was that the Applicant made payments to her because she is resident in Honiara where there is a Western Union Money Transfer Service. By contrast, the Applicant’s father and brother live in Malaita Province. The Applicant sends the money to [Ms B] which is then delivered to the Applicant’s father and brother by trusted friends or family members who travel between Honiara and Malaita.
The Delegate’s decision
The Delegate’s decision, made on 10 December 2021 begin by summarising the Applicant's claims for a protection visa as summarised above, including the Statement of claims in response to the s 56 invitation for further information, and the response to the s 57 letter.
On the dispute between the two tribes that the Applicant referred to, the Delegate was unable to locate information regarding a particular dispute between the villages concerned or tribal and/or ethnic groups. However, there was country information indicating land dispute issues in Malaita Province, including [Region 1]. With no evidence to the contrary, the Delegate accepted that there was an ethnic and/or land dispute between the Applicant’s village and/or tribe, and the [Village 2] people.
The Delegate referred to the inconsistency of the dates on which the Applicant made his application for a visitor visa, and his explanation about the date of the assault. The Delegate did not accept the Applicant’s inability to accurately recall a specific date or period accounted for the significant variations in the sequence of events and timeframes provided by the Applicant for his protection visa application. The Delegate noted that the Applicant arrived in Australia [in] December 2014 and if the ambush had occurred before the lodgement of his visitor visa application (August 2014) the Applicant’s timeline of staying in Honiara only one month before departing the Solomon Islands is inconsistent and implausible.
The Delegate then referred to the discrepancies between the Applicant’s application for a protection visa, and his application for a visitor visa concerning whether:
(a)his father was alive; and secondly
(b)the Applicant had a partner in the Solomon Islands named [Ms B].
The Delegate also referred to the Applicant’s explanation in response to the s 57 letter and accepted that it was plausible the Applicant was not involved in the preparation of his application for a visitor visa and may not have been aware of its contents. Whilst the Delegate did not place significant weight on the discrepancies, she noted that the Applicant had not provided any explanation why [Friend A], the family friend who prepared the application for a tourist visa would include incorrect information in the application for the tourist visa including identifying the Applicant’s first cousin as his spouse and his father being deceased.

In considering all the information before her, the Delegate did not accept the Applicant’s claims for protection were credible. The Delegate referred to internally contradictory information on material factors of his claims which were also inconsistent with the Applicant’s visitor visa application. For that reason, the Delegate did not accept that the Applicant had a relationship with a girl from a rival village or tribe and did not accept the claim that the Applicant was ambushed.
The Delegate also considered that the Applicant’s delay in lodging the application for a protection visa undermined the credibility of the Applicant's claims. The Delegate decided that the Applicant did not meet the statutory criteria to be a refugee, or for complementary protection under s 36(a)(aa) and therefore refused to grant the Applicant a protection visa.
The Applicant filed an application with the AAT for review of the decision to refuse to grant him a protection visa on 13 December 2021.
Evidence before the Tribunal
Evidence from the Applicant
The Applicant’s oral evidence at the hearing commenced with him stating what he feared if he had to return to the Solomon Islands. He said there were two major issues between the rival tribes, which were land and women. He said that the [Village 2] people look for an opportunity to ‘create issues’. He said that if he appeared in the Solomon Islands again, it will be a ‘trigger’.
He confirmed that the basis for his claim for a protection visa was that he had a relationship with a [Village 2] girl, RR[Ms A] and ‘criminal gangs' on his island found out about it and confronted him. He said that he was part of the tribal leader’s family and his family has to be careful with relationships, but he said that he was careless with his relationship.
Referring to the ‘Statement of claims' document, I asked the Applicant if he and [Ms A] would meet at a 'usual place’. However, I noted that from other parts of the document, he said that he had been standing and waiting near the main entrance to his village called [Village 1] (prior to the assault by the [Village 2] men). He confirmed that was the case, but the main entrance to his village was not the usual meeting place between [Village 1] and [Village 2]. The usual meeting place was near a cave between the two villages. He said that [Village 1] and [Village 2] were close together, about a kilometre apart and within walking distance.
The Applicant confirmed details from a statement then recently provided to the Tribunal by [Sibling A], that an incident occurred [in] September 2014 when a large group of men, approximately 20, from [Tribe 2] attacked the Applicant. He also confirmed something that he had said in his application for a protection visa, that [Tribe 2] men hit him over the head. However, he managed to escape. I asked the Applicant what the [Tribe 2] men him over the head with? He said it was a stick, and they brought with them knives and axes. He said that the hit over the head rendered him unconscious, and he did not know how he ended up in hospital. He described the wound as serious, and that the mark or scar is still there.
I asked the Applicant how he managed to escape if he was confronted by 20 armed men and had been hit on the head? He said he did not know how he got to the hospital. After he was hit on the head the next thing he remembers is waking up in hospital with bandages on his head. The Applicant said that he knew the man who hit him on the head, whose name he gave at the hearing, and I will identify as '[name]'. He was from the [Tribe 2], from [Village 2].
If the ambush occurred at the front of the Applicant’s village, and there were 20 men from the rival [Tribe 2] tribe there, I asked the Applicant how there were not also a number of people from his village to defend him, including his father and his brothers who were leaders in the village? The Applicant said that the ambush occurred at the front of his village and it was unexpected. He said that at the time, there were not many people in the village. He said that he was waiting for [Ms A] at the usual meeting place and he waited for an hour and she did not arrive so the Applicant said he decided to head home. He said he saw the [Tribe 2] men coming towards him.
The Applicant’s application for protection visa said that the [Tribe 2] tribespeople came to his home to assault him. On the other hand, in the Statement of claims document that he provided to the Department in October 2021 he said that he was waiting for [Ms A] near the main entrance of his village when the group of men approached him holding spears and axes. I asked him why there was an inconsistency between those versions? He replied that he sometimes would wait for [Ms A] at the front of his village.
In the Applicant’s Statement of claims document, he said that after he was hit on the head, he was taken to his family by the villagers. I pointed out to the Applicant that is a different version of events compared to his claims in his application for a protection visa, that he managed to escape from the [Tribe 2] tribespeople, and I asked for his comment? He said that he heard from his family that they took him to hospital. He said after that, he explained to his father what had happened. He said he did not know if his family members were present at the front of his village when the assault occurred, but his family members helped him. He said that at the front of his village was a lodge or gatehouse 'where the boys from the village hang out’. The Applicant said that he did not know if his brother ([Sibling A]) was at the front of the village and he did not know if the 'boys in the gatehouse' came to his help.
In response to a question from me, the Applicant said that he stayed with his aunt's friend [Friend A] in Honiara before he came to Australia. He said stayed for a week in [Village 3] after the assault, then with [Friend A] for three months.
The Applicant said that after the assault in September 2014, his family made a complaint to the police, but the police are dominated by the [Tribe 2] people. He said that the police told the Applicant to 'keep yourself safe'. [Friend A] told the Applicant that would not be able to protect the Applicant long, because of concerns about the safety of his own family. The Applicant said that he was not taken to the police after the assault but that the boys at the gatehouse knew who had hit him. The Applicant said he had not made a further complaint to the police in the Solomon Islands since he had come to Australia.
As to the application for the visitor visa that the Applicant made earlier in 2014, the Applicant confirmed that the reason for coming to Australia on a visitor visa was to attend a seven day [Religious event 1] in [State 1]. I asked the Applicant if a visa was created for him to do so, and he replied that he did not know much about those things. He said that [Friend A] just gave him the paperwork and told the Applicant it was for a religious event conducted by [Church 1].
I put to the Applicant that because the tourist visa was granted to him, he could have left the Solomon Islands immediately after it was granted to him on 2 September 2014? He said that he did not know about the date - he was just given the paperwork. Put another way, I asked the Applicant that he did not have to wait until December 2014 to come to Australia? He said that he did not know why he waited until December 2014 to come to Australia. He said that [Friend A] looked after the paperwork and the Applicant did not know how he got the paperwork to get him to Australia in 2014. He said he did not know who paid for him to come to Australia in 2014.
When I put that proposition to the Applicant on the first hearing date, he said that he did not know about the date when the tourist visa was granted to him in 2014, and that he was just given the paperwork. However, that does not explain why [Friend A] was concerned about the safety of [Friend A’s] family because the Applicant was staying with him in Honiara. Further, the Applicant did not know why he waited until December 2014 come to Australia.
The s 57 letter from the Department pointed out that when the Applicant applied for a visitor visa, the application said that the Applicant's father was deceased. I asked the Applicant if the statement made in the application for the visitor visa was correct. He said that his father was not deceased by the time he applied for the visitor visa, and is still alive. The Applicant explained that he did not know about the contents of the application for the visitor visa. He said he was just granted the visa and did not prepare the paperwork for it.
I accept the Applicant’s explanation that he has not married, that [Ms B] is the Applicant’s cousin and that the Applicant’s father is still alive in the Solomon Islands. I also accept the Applicant’s evidence given at the hearing that he sends money back to his family via his cousin who lives in Honiara.
The Applicant’s response to the s 57 letter, dated 10 December 2021, also stated that the Applicant has a sister and cousin who live in Honiara. I asked the Applicant, if he had to return to the Solomon Islands, could he stay with either of them? He confirmed that he has a sister and a cousin who live in Honiara, but they live with their in-laws. He said that it is not safe and there is not enough room for him to live with them.
Since the Applicant described the events in his application for a protection visa as occurring in 2014, I asked him whether the RAMSI intervention force had left the Solomon Islands by then? He said that he thought the intervention force had left by then. I then asked him whether [Tribe 2] people were part of the Malaita Island people who caused trouble leading to the RAMSI[5] intervention? He answered in the affirmative, and said that the [Tribe 2] people are all around the province (of Malaita). He said that the [Tribe 2] people just build a village wherever they live. He said that [Tribe 2] do not have any guns, but they have bows and arrows, clubs and sticks.
Applicant’s evidence about the relationship with [Ms A]
[5] The Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands.
On the Applicant’s relationship with [Ms A], I asked him if he kept in touch with her since 2014? He said he had, through her friends. I pointed out to the Applicant that the events that he described as being the cause of coming to Australia had occurred 11 years ago now, and I asked him if [Ms A] had married since then. He said that he did not know and said that she does not want to marry. For his part, the Applicant said he has not married since 2014 and has not got another partner and was 'still looking'.
I asked the Applicant, if he and [Ms A] were in love, why did she not also come to Australia to be with him? The Applicant said that even with him being in Australia, he did not know how to organise the paperwork. He said he stayed in touch with [Ms A’s] friends through social media. He said he did not know if [Ms A] had any social media accounts. His father told him to break off the relationship with [Ms A].
In the Applicant’s Statement of claims, he said that [Ms A] was set up as a trap for him, but then the two fell in love. I asked the Applicant if [Ms A] told him that she was set up as a trap for him? He said that it is the 'normal thing’ for the [Village 2] people to use women as a trap. It happened to his father and grandfather. His tribe do not intermarry with the [Village 2] people.
I pointed out to the Applicant that the events he described in September 2014 occurred almost 11 years ago and that peace has been restored to the Solomon Islands. I asked him why he thought that [Tribe 2] would come after him now if he was to return to the Solomon Islands? The Applicant said for him, 'It is angry still’. He said the situation was unresolved and that was his fear. He said that there had been 'a few issues in my village’. The issue was about land and women and is like a trigger. The villagers of his age still remember the issue and he feared that if he returned it would be like a trigger.
The Applicant’s application for a protection visa referred to 'criminal gangs' in [Village 2] being responsible for the attack on him. I asked the Applicant, if since 2014, he thought that the 'criminal gangs' had now been broken up? He said that when it comes to land and women, the [Village 2] people are very aggressive. They wished they owned the land. He said that they forced their women to marry on the main island (in the Solomon Islands). He called them gangs because when he was in the Solomon Islands, they were very violent.
I asked the Applicant if he stayed in touch with his family in the Solomon Islands? He said ‘sometimes', and that he can pass messages on to his brother. I asked the Applicant if they ever tell him anything about [Ms A]? He said that his brother never mentions anything about [Ms A]. His brother never talks to him about whether [Tribe 2] are still after him, and his brother has not been to Australia.
Delay in applying for a protection visa
The Applicant’s tourist visa expired in January 2015 but he did not apply for a protection visa until 2018. I asked the Applicant if that meant he did not have a current visa between those years and was an ‘illegal immigrant’? He said that he did not know about that, but his migration agent explained it to him. I asked the Applicant, if he was scared for his life in the Solomon Islands, why it took him almost four years from when he arrived in Australia to apply for a protection visa? He replied that he ‘just ignored it'. He said he did not know about immigration but when he came across his migration agent, then he realised he should apply for a protection visa.
Statement by [Sibling A]
Shortly before the hearing, on 11 June 2025, the Applicant provided a statement by his brother [Sibling A]. In that statement, the Applicant's brother said that he witnessed the events surrounding the attack on his brother [in September] 2014. [Sibling A] said that he knew that his brother's relationship with [Ms A], a member of [Tribe 2], was a significant factor in the violence his brother faced.
The statement continues that [in] September 2014, [Sibling A] saw a large group of men, approximately 20 in number, from [Tribe 2] attack his brother. He said that they were armed and intent on causing his brother serious harm. The attack was brutal and left his brother badly injured. [Sibling A] said he was able to help his brother escape to a nearby village (which he did not name) where he could hide temporarily. The next day, his brother left for Honiara.
[Sibling A’s] statement continued that he wanted to offer his brother a more permanent place of safety but lacked the means of protecting him from [Tribe 2]. He said that their reach is extensive, as he feared that they would seek revenge on him and his family if he sheltered his brother.
The statement continued that after his brother arrived in Honiara, [Sibling A] heard that [Tribe 2] were still searching for his brother and intended to kill him. [Sibling A] said he understood that the threat against his brother still remains and that he had heard that [Tribe 2] has vowed to kill his brother wherever he is in the Solomon Islands. [Sibling A] said that the threat persists to this day.
At the first hearing date, I asked the Applicant some questions about the statement by [Sibling A]. On that part of the statement where [Sibling A] said that he had witnessed the attack on the Applicant, I asked the Applicant if he knew that his brother was around the scene of the attack. The Applicant said that ‘there are usually boys in the gatehouse’ and that his brother was in the gatehouse. The Applicant said he heard stories from them after the attack.
I asked the Applicant if his brother did not try to come to the Applicant’s aid as he was being attacked. The Applicant said that he did not remember if his brother came to help – he had just blacked out. The Applicant also did not know if his brother ran and called for help from the other men in the village, including his father and uncles.
The Applicant said that his father and uncles did not organise a retaliation against the [Tribe 2] men. He said that they are large in number and dominate the population in the villages and that his own people are the minority in numbers. [Sibling A’s] statement said that he was able to help the Applicant escape to a nearby village where he could hide temporarily. I asked the Applicant the name of that village. The Applicant said that he was taken to a hospital which was close to a village and that there was a police post there too.
I asked the Applicant how his brother was aware of the Applicant's relationship with [Ms A]? The Applicant said that he must have told his brother over time. He said he sometimes used to stay with the boys in the gatehouse, and there was a lot of teasing each other about such matters.
The Department had raised with the Applicant a question about what the Applicant had stated to be the date of the ambush given in the response by the Applicant’s agent on 10 December 2021, compared with the date he stated in his application for a visitor visa. The migration agent had submitted that the Applicant had only provided an estimate of the date of the ambush but that the Applicant's memory was not clear on that. However, in the most recent statement by [Sibling A] was that the attack did happen [in] September 2014. I asked the Applicant if he was now firm in his belief that the ambush occurred [in] September 2014? The Applicant said that if his brother witnessed the event, then that is maybe the better knowledge about the date of the ambush.
I asked the Applicant how he got his brother’s statement? He said he got in touch with his brother and it took him two or three days to do so. He said he spoke to his brother through a direct call and asked him to prepare a statement.
The Applicant confirmed something his migration agent had stated in a response to the Department dated 10 December 2021, that he sent money back to his father and brother in the Solomon Islands through [Ms B]. He also said he sent money back to his sister who lives in Honiara. I asked the Applicant if his main purpose in being in Australia was to send money back to his family? He responded that it was part of the privilege in coming to Australia.
I asked the Applicant why he thought that [Tribe 2] would want to hurt him now, almost 11 years since he was in the Solomon Islands? He said that [Tribe 2] look for tiny problems and create big issues out of little issues. He said that they had damaged his father's boat and ended up at his father's house, about a fishing issue. The Applicant said he did not know how the issue at his father's house resolved itself.
The Applicant said that him being in Australia is a sacrifice for his family's sake. He said that there is not violence every day between the rival tribes. There is rivalry but not day–to-day violence and his village keeps out of trouble.
Finally, the Applicant said that he wanted his brother to give evidence to the Tribunal. A further hearing date was then arranged by the Tribunal to hear evidence from the Applicant’s brother in the Solomon Islands.
Second hearing - evidence by [Sibling A]
The Tribunal reconvened for a further hearing on 30 July 2025 to hear evidence from the Applicant’s brother, [Sibling A] by telephone from the Solomon Islands. He confirmed that he was the Applicant’s [brother] and had made a statement in support of the Applicant’s claim for a protection visa.
He confirmed that he knew that the Applicant was in a relationship with [Ms A], a member of [Tribe 2]. He found that out during the course of the incident when his brother was assaulted by members of [Tribe 2], and his brother mentioned that to 'some of the boys'.
I asked [Sibling A] if there was something wrong with the Applicant being in a relationship with [Ms A]? He said yes, it was a serious matter. There were two things that [Tribe 2] would kill a man for, and that was disturbing their land, or disrespect of one of their women. He said that he does not really know about the deeper parts of the [Tribe 2] culture, but if you are seeing a woman of that tribe, that is what will happen in a case like his brother’s.

I asked [Sibling A] if it was disrespect for a woman from [Tribe 2] to be in a relationship with a man from another tribe? He said he was not really sure, but it might be that [Tribe 2] would beat a man from another tribe. He said that is traditional culture, but it still happens.
Considering [Sibling A’s] statement, I asked him if he was pretty sure that the date of the assault on his brother was [in] September 2014 and he said that he was. He did not see the men approach his brother from where he was. He was at the meeting house at the front of his village, and he saw his brother after he had already been beaten. [Sibling A] said that the [Tribe 2] men had already 'killed' his brother. I asked him if by ‘killed', he meant beaten. He said by ‘killed’ he meant both killed dead, but also beaten. After the [Tribe 2] men had beaten his brother, they all ran away, and he and other men from his village helped his brother.
I asked him if he went for help from other men in the village? He said it was just the 'boys from the meeting house’, less than 10, who came along to help his brother. He did not see the [Tribe 2] men assault his brother - he said that his brother was already beaten when he saw him. He did not know the [Tribe 2] men who beat his brother because he did not see the beating. He said that 'we’ did attempt to report the assault to the police, but there was no response.
[Sibling A] said in his statement that he understood that the attack was directly related to his brother’s relationship with [Ms A], and I asked him how he knew that? It was the 'boys in the meeting house' who told him that his brother was beaten because of his relationship with [Ms A]. He said that there was not anything that the [Tribe 2] men said to his brother about [Ms A]. His brother was beaten badly and made unconscious by the assault.
I asked [Sibling A] if he and any others did anything to make the [Tribe 2] men go away, and he said that after the [Tribe 2] men knew that his brother was already 'killed', they ran off. He said that they probably thought they had killed his brother because he was unconscious. I asked him if the [Tribe 2] men had used any weapons, and he said that he was not on the site of the assault, but they were normally armed.
[Sibling A] said in his statement that after brother arrived in Honiara, [Sibling A] had heard that [Tribe 2] were still searching for him and intended to kill him I asked where he heard that? He said that they have some of ‘our people' around in Honiara, and they had heard of those problems. He confirmed that by 'kill’, that meant beating, stabbing or killing his brother.
His statement referred to the understanding that the threat against his brother remained and he had heard that [Tribe 2] had vowed to kill him whatever he is in the Solomon Islands. I asked his reason for that understanding, almost 11 years after the assault in 2014? He replied that what he knows about the [Tribe 2] is that when they know you are still around, they can beat or kill you. He said that was the case, even though it was 11 years ago.
I pointed out to [Sibling A] that in 2014, the Solomon Islands was only just getting over the troubles which caused the RAMSI intervention. I asked him whether [Tribe 2] was one of the main groups that caused trouble in the Solomon Islands that led to the intervention? He said that the tribe is part of the 'practices of the problems’. What [Tribe 2] do is part of the cultural practises of their tribe. I asked him if, since 2014, things had largely settled down in the Solomon Islands? He said that he was not really sure, but [Tribe 2] do anything that they can do as their way of practising their culture.
I asked him whether the Solomon Islands police have regained control of the islands? He said that it is the duty of the police to do so. However, within his tribe, [Tribe 2] are still a threat. If his brother is around in the Solomon Islands, it is still a threat.
He did not know what [Ms A] had been doing since 2014, and did not know if she had married. She does not ever try to contact his brother through him. In ‘the tribal set up’ in the Solomon Islands, she would know that he was the Applicant’s brother.
I asked [Sibling A] if [Tribe 2] would still be after his brother 11 years after the assault in 2014, simply because he was in a relationship with [Ms A]? He replied that it is the respect which his brother had destroyed. This is one of the most important aspects for [Tribe 2] and his brother is a tribal leader and by ‘killing' his brother, they can ‘take over the place'. I also asked him if [Tribe 2] try to trap men from his tribe with the women? He said that is something that they do. It is the only thing they can do to get land. I asked him that as far as [Tribe 2] were concerned, from what they could see with [Ms A] and his brother, was that all that [Ms A] was doing, was trying to trap his brother? He was not sure what was the connection: he said 'we thought that would be a trap’.
If [Ms A] was just doing what [Tribe 2] wanted, I asked [Sibling A] why they would still want to hurt the Applicant? He said that [Tribe 2] move from one location to another to 'gain places’. They would try to kill his brother to gain power and that the relationship between his brother and [Ms A] was a pathway for [Tribe 2] to get land from his tribe.
I put to [Sibling A] that if anyone from [Tribe 2] was to kill his brother [the applicant], that would result in a murder charge? He responded that from the tribal view, that would be the only thing that would happen and they would not mind if there was a murder charge. On the prospect of why anyone would risk being convicted and spending a long time in jail, a tribal member would do that for the tribe, and it is ‘their honour, probably’. It would not worry them to be put in jail for a long time
I asked [Sibling A] if the threat from [Tribe 2] was simply a hollow threat to keep his brother away? He said to [Tribe 2], he did not know: ‘They do as they are taught to do'. Since the assault in 2014, I asked him if anyone had tried to make peace with [Tribe 2]? He said that [Tribe 2] have a large number and they are still 'building up the strength to conquer things'. He said that making peace with them is not easy.
In the same vein, I also asked [Sibling A] if there had been any incidents in which [Tribe 2] had come to his father's house in his village to cause trouble? He explained that soon after his brother was beaten, they came to his village and destroyed his father's house. They came to the village demanding his father and when his father was not around, they destroyed his father's house. [Tribe 2] came around when the men from his village were out farming. His father had not been killed by [Tribe 2] yet. When I asked [Sibling A] if anyone complained to the police, he said that to the police ‘It is just part of the culture’

100. He said that [Tribe 2] came from the outer islands in the Solomon Islands, and try to 'own things in Malaita’.[6]
[6] The island where the Applicant and his brother's tribe are located.
Second hearing – further evidence by the Applicant
101. I had some further questions for the Applicant at the second hearing date. In the Applicant’s Statement of claims made in October 2021, at paragraph (11), he said that the [Village 2] men would use their women to attract and seduce the men from his tribe so that the [Village 2] men could trap and kill them. I asked the Applicant if he could give any examples where the [Village 2] people actually did that? He said he asked his father and his grandfather, who said that the [Village 2] people have done that before. He said that when the [Village 2] ladies go to his village, they seek out the best karo and shells.
102. In the same statement, at paragraph (13), the Applicant said that [Ms A] had been hit and abused by her family members for coming to see the Applicant on the day he was assaulted. I asked him how he knew that, if he was taken away from his village by his family and then hid at [Village 3] before escaping to Honiara? He said he heard that in Honiara, from a family member, namely his aunt.
103. I asked the Applicant when he came to Australia on the visitor visa, whether he attended [Religious event 1] conducted by [Church 1], which was the basis for him coming to Australia on the visitor visa as stated in a letter to the Australian High Commissioner's Office in Port Moresby by Mr [B] dated 2 July 2014? He said that he did not, and he did not know about the program. He just stayed at the house he was living in, in Queensland. I told the Applicant that in the application by [Friend A] on behalf of the Applicant for a visitor visa was the letter from Mr [B] which listed some people from the Solomon Islands who were to go to Australia to do the [Religious event 1] program as well as the Applicant. They included other members of [Friend A’s] family. The Applicant said that [Friend A] was his aunt’s friend and he stayed at [Friend A’s] house in Honiara.
104. I asked the Applicant if the members of [Friend A’s] family went back to the Solomon Islands after the program finished, but the Applicant stayed on in Australia? He said that they left him in Queensland. He did not know if they went to the program. He just stayed at the house in Queensland.
105. I asked the Applicant to comment about a matter raised in the Delegate’s decision dated December 2021. That was that when the Department was processing the Applicant’s application for a protection visa, the Department sent to his migration agent a letter asking about inconsistencies between the date on which he said he was assaulted and the date on which he applied for a protection visa. The migration agent made a submission in December 2021, that the Applicant had difficulty in remembering due to his emotions and the toll that the visa application status was having on his mental health. Also, he had to withdraw from counselling services as a result of no longer having access to Medicare. The Delegate’s decision stated that the Applicant had not lost access to Medicare while he was on a bridging visa. The Applicant’s response to my question about that was that he had forgotten about it.
106. At the end of the second hearing, I asked the Applicant if there was anything else he wished to say in support of his application for a protection visa. He said that [Friend A] had made his application for a visitor visa, and did not tell him that he had obtained a visitor visa to allow the Applicant to go to Australia. I asked the Applicant how he knew that he was going to Australia? He said that sometime after he signed the application for the visitor visa, he was told he will go to Australia, but could not remember when he signed the paper.
107. He said that he did not know he was being sent to Australia for [Religious event 1] but that he stayed in Queensland for a month. I asked him what he thought when he was put on a plane to go to Australia, and he said he was confused. I asked him whether he thought it was a good idea for him to come to Australia and again, he said he was confused and he just followed [Friend A] and the arrangements made for him.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
108. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
109. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations

113. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
114. The issue in this case is whether there is a ‘real chance’[7] or a 'real risk'[8] that the Applicant will come to the applicable level of harm should he return to the Solomon Islands now, or in the foreseeable future, because of any past relationship with [Ms A], and because of that, people from [Tribe 2] would seek to harm him. For the following reasons, I have concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
[7] For the purposes of a well-founded fear of persecution, under s 5J of the Migration Act.
[8] For the purposes of complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
115. First, I do not accept the credibility of the Applicant’s claim that he would be harmed if he returned to the Solomon Islands, because of the sequence of events and the grant of the tourist visa to the Applicant in September 2014.
116. The Applicant and his brother say that the assault on the Applicant occurred [in] September 2014. There is other objective evidence that he made an application for a visitor visa on 14 August 2014. The Applicant says that he did not have involvement in making that application and that it was made for him by [Friend A]. I find that there is no doubt that the application for the visitor visa was made on 14 August 2014. The documents held on that application by the Department prove that much. The Applicant agreed that an application was made for him to visit Australia to attend a training program for [Church 1].
117. There is further objective evidence in the form of the Applicant’s migration movements records provided to the Tribunal, which reveal that he arrived in Australia, on the visitor visa [in] December 2014.
118. If the Applicant was assaulted in September 2014, and even allowing for him to, on his own version, escape to [Village 3], then Honiara, he stayed in Honiara for approximately three months after the assault. However, as early as September 2014, he had been granted a visitor visa, which would have allowed him to travel to Australia on the visitor visa without having to hide away in Honiara for any further period of time. On the Applicant’s version, [Friend A] knew the situation which the Applicant was escaping from, organised the application for the visitor visa for the Applicant, but was also fearful for the safety of his own family, in sheltering the Applicant. In other words, the Applicant had the means to escape the Solomon Islands as soon as the visitor visa was granted, in September 2014, if he was genuinely in fear of [Tribe 2] people who were, again on his own version, located in numbers in Honiara. Further, [Friend A] was anxious for the Applicant not to stay long at [Friend A’s] home, because he was concerned about the safety of his own family.
119. There is therefore an inconsistency between the Applicant saying he was anxious about staying in Honiara, but nonetheless did so for three months on his evidence and the objective evidence, that he came to Australia in December 2014, when he had the means to come to Australia when the visitor visa was granted, in September 2014.
120. The Applicant’s explanation that he did not prepare the paperwork for the visitor visa but instead that [Friend A] did, is not a satisfactory explanation for why the Applicant did not come to Australia in early September 2014 on the tourist visa which had been granted by then, if the Applicant was concerned enough about his safety, to stay in hiding with [Friend A] in Honiara, and [Friend A] had his own concerns for harbouring the Applicant in his house.
121. The Applicant said that he did not know about the paperwork for the tourist visa, and that [Friend A] had submitted the application for the tourist visa. However, that is no explanation for why the Applicant did not travel to Australia in September 2014 on the tourist visa. Although the Applicant did not make the application for the tourist visa, [Friend A] did, and was aware of the contents and the Applicant wanting to escape the situation he found himself in, and [Friend A] would certainly have been aware of that when the tourist visa was granted to the Applicant. It is incomprehensible that given the concern that [Friend A] had for his own family, that he would not have told the Applicant that the tourist visa had been granted, which meant that the Applicant could have travelled to Australia in early September 2014, instead of waiting three months, until December 2014.
122. Further, [Friend A] applied for the visitor visa in August 2014. However, both the Applicant and his brother say that the assault on him occurred in September 2014. If that is the case, then there cannot be any credence given to [Friend A] applying for the visitor visa as a way of getting the Applicant off the Solomon Islands for his own protection.
123. There is a further inconsistency in the version of events offered by the Applicant at different times, and their sequence. In the Applicant’s Statement of affairs document, he said that after he was attacked, he was taken to his father, who was ‘incredibly angry’ at him for forming a relationship with [Ms A], and his father said he could not stay in the village, and arranged for him to go to [Village 3], then to Honiara.[9] However, at the hearing, inconsistently with that, the Applicant said he was rendered unconscious in the attack, and the next thing he remembers was waking up in hospital in [Village 3]. He does not know how he got to the hospital.[10]
[9] See paragraph [23] above.
[10] See paragraph [48] above.

124. Second, it is clear that [Ms A] has not come to Australia to be with the Applicant. When I asked the Applicant about that at the hearing, he said that he did not know how to organise the paperwork. However, it is also clear that the Applicant engaged a migration agent, albeit three years and 11 months after he came to Australia. Even at that time, the Applicant could have supplemented what he already knew about the availability of a tourist visa, since that is how he came to Australia himself, together with the expertise of the migration agent he had engaged, for [Ms A] to come to Australia. The Applicant did not do so. He said he has only had indirect contact with [Ms A] through the social media of her friends. I find if the Applicant and [Ms A] were in love, that one of them would have made more effort to get in direct contact with the other.
125. That the Applicant made no efforts to do any of the things described in the previous paragraph, from the safety of Australia casts doubt in my mind about the credibility of his claimed relationship with [Ms A], and therefore the basis of his claim for a protection visa.
126. Third, although the Applicant claims to know of examples where men from his tribe were killed because they had formed a relationship with a woman from [Tribe 2], when I asked the Applicant if we knew of any such examples, he said only that his father and grandfather had said that had happened before, and as to actual knowledge he could say only that when the women from [Tribe 2] go to his village, they seek the best karo and shells. However, that falls far short of examples that the Applicant could speak of where men from [Tribe 2] had killed a man from the Applicant’s tribe simply because of forming a relationship with a [Tribe 2] woman.
127. Fourth, if the Applicant knew, as he said he did, that [Tribe 2] can kill a man for forming a relationship, even a consensual relationship, with one of their women, and he knew that [Tribe 2] use their women to trap men from outside their tribe, I find that the Applicant would simply not have formed a relationship with a [Tribe 2] woman, for fear of death.
128. Also on the relationship between the Applicant and [Ms A, Sibling A] gave evidence that one of the things [Tribe 2] would ‘kill’[11] a man for is disrespect to one of their women. I accept that a tribe would wish to inflict punishment on a man from a rival tribe for some form of assault on a woman of their tribe, but there was nothing like that on the Applicant’s or [Sibling A’s] version of the relationship with [Ms A].
[11] Accepting that what [Sibling A] said at the hearing he meant by ‘kill’, was that it meant to kill, or beat someone seriously.
129. Fifth, whatever the Applicant says about a man from outside [Tribe 2] forming a relationship with one of their women, being something that a man could be killed for as a matter of tradition or past history, I find that there is no doubt that the Solomon Islands police would consider a killing of that kind to be murder and would treat it as such.
130. Whatever the circumstances were in the past in the Solomon Islands in the Applicant’s father's and grandfather’s day, I am not satisfied that in contemporary Solomon Islands, that a member of [Tribe 2] would risk conviction for murder and a very long prison sentence simply because the Applicant had formed a consensual relationship with a [Tribe 2] woman 11 years ago. The Applicant and his brother say that the police regarded the assault on the Applicant and the burning of his father's house as tribal business, but what would clearly be a murder, of the Applicant, is objectively, another matter entirely.
131. Sixth, there are some inconsistencies in the Applicant’s version of where he says the attack on him by [Tribe 2] occurred. In his application for a protection visa, he said that [Tribe 2] ‘attended his home’ and attacked him. At the hearing, he said that he was ambushed in front of the village. This must have been in sight of the village, according to [Sibling A’s] evidence, since he said he saw [Tribe 2] run away after the attack. Given the Applicant’s evidence that the gatehouse is in front of the village and some of the young men of the village spent time there, and came to the Applicant’s aid after the attack, there is a question why the young men of the village did not come to the Applicant’s aid to ward off any attack on the Applicant.
132. Seventh, [Sibling A] gave no evidence about directly receiving any threat against the Applicant in the 11 years since the attack. He did say he had heard (indirectly) of threats against the Applicant from people in Honiara. It is not as though [Tribe 2] and the Applicant’s tribe have nothing to do with each other. After all, the Applicant said he met [Ms A] in a market. It is reasonable to believe that if [Tribe 2] were still seeking to do harm to the Applicant, they would have passed on some sort of threat to [Sibling A] directly, since the two villages were only a kilometre apart.
133. Overall, I find that the claims by the Applicant that he would be killed by [Tribe 2] if he returned to the Solomon Islands because of the past relationship with [Ms A], 11 years ago, to be exaggerated. He gave no evidence about direct threats or further attack after he relocated to Honiara before coming to Australia. He said that he feared harm by hearing about it from his aunt’s friend, [Friend A]. However, I find that if [Tribe 2] had intended to kill him in the months that he was in Honiara before coming to Australia, [Tribe 2] would have done so then.
Does the Applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
134. For the reasons described in the previous section of these reasons, I find that there is not a 'real chance' of the Applicant coming to 'serious harm'[12] if he was to return to the Solomon Islands now, or in the foreseeable future.
[12] As described in s 5J(5) of the Migration Act.
135. For that reason, I find that the Applicant does not satisfy the statutory criteria for the Applicant having a 'well-founded fear of persecution', as described in s 5J of the Migration Act.
Does the Applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
136. Having concluded that the Applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), I have considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
137. For the same reason as I arrived at in the conclusion that there is not a 'real chance' that the Applicant will come to 'serious harm' if he returned to the Solomon Islands now or in the foreseeable future, as described in the 'Reasons and findings' section of these reasons, I also find that there is not a 'real risk' that the Applicant will suffer ‘significant harm'[13] if he returned to the Solomon Islands now, or in the foreseeable future.
[13] As defined in s 36(2A) of the Migration Act.
138. I therefore find that the Applicant does not satisfy the statutory criteria for complementary protection as described in s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
CONCLUSION
139. For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that the Applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

Having concluded that the Applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), I have considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). I am not satisfied that the Applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the Applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the Applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION

142. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the Applicant a protection visa.
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…

5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…

5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…

36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…