2317001 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision by a delegate of the Minister to refuse an application for a protection visa lodged by an applicant from Papua New Guinea. The applicant arrived in Australia on a temporary work visa in December 2022 and applied for a protection visa in September 2023, approximately nine months after arrival and 18 days before his temporary visa expired. The applicant claimed he sought protection due to a lack of employment and low wages in Papua New Guinea, and the economic instability of his home country, asserting that he would be unable to support himself or his family if returned.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Papua New Guinea, he would suffer significant harm or a real chance of serious harm. The Tribunal was required to determine if Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims. Despite being given ample opportunity, the applicant failed to provide a detailed statement or statutory declaration supporting his protection claims, submitting only a photograph of his passport details and various documents without explanation as to their relevance. The Tribunal noted a significant delay in the lodging of the protection visa application, which, when considered alongside the lack of genuine evidence, correlated with a lack of genuineness in the applicant's claims of a well-founded fear of persecution due to tribal conflict. The Tribunal emphasised that the onus was on the applicant to establish his claims and that it was not required to make or assist in making the applicant's case.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory elements required for a protection visa. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the application.