2315146 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Papua New Guinea, sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse his application for a protection visa. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the definition of a refugee or was owed complementary protection. The applicant claimed he left Papua New Guinea due to its poor economic conditions, lack of job opportunities, and low wages, which he believed would make it difficult to subsist and earn a living. He also asserted he had been harmed in his village and that authorities would not provide assistance.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or whether he faced a real risk of significant harm as a consequence of being removed to Papua New Guinea, thereby qualifying for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims of economic hardship and potential harm in light of the relevant legislative criteria and guidelines, including the definition of "significant harm" and the availability of effective protection measures.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence regarding his difficulties in finding well-paid employment in Papua New Guinea and the general economic conditions. However, it found that while the applicant would likely face challenges in securing well-paid work and might experience some economic hardship, he would be able to subsist upon his return to his village with the support of his family and by engaging in activities such as gardening and working at a street stall, as he had done previously. The Tribunal concluded that this level of economic deprivation did not amount to significant harm, nor did it deny the applicant the capacity to subsist. The applicant did not claim to be unable to subsist, and there was no suggestion that he was a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the visa.