2404183 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1549

2404183 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1549 (17 JUNE 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal number: 2404183
TribunalGeneral Member S Collins
Date:17 June 2025
Place of decision: Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 17 June 2025 at 12:03pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Solomon Islands – Federal Court remittal – fear of harm from partner’s relatives after her death – demands for bride price and compensation for death – threatened and attacked – relocation – police corruption – delay in applying for protection – complementary protection – country information – traditional customs – bride price and compensation for death – excessive demands during ethnic conflicts – traditional dispute resolution and police effectiveness – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), (2B), 65, 91R
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510
Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
CQO23 v MICMA [2025] FCA 97
Guo Wei Rong and Pan Run Juan v Minister for Immigration [1999] HCA 14
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Rajaratnam v MIMA [2000] FCA 1111
Ram v MIEA (1995) 57 FCR 565
SZLVZ v MIAC [2008] FCA 1816
SZNRZ v MIAC [2010] FCA 107
SZDGB v MIAC [2006] FMCA 341
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 DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Solomon Islands applied for the visa on 16 October 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 14 September 2015.
The applicant’s appeal to the Federal Court was successful ([Citation]). The application was remitted back to the Tribunal.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (‘the Transitional Act’), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 February 2025, 2 April 2025 and 5 June 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from a witness in the Solomon Islands. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Solomon Islands Tok Pisin and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
RELEVANT LAW
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, the applicant 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.
Refugee criterion
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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s 91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s 91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s 91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s 91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s 91R(1)(a) of the Act.
Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection criterion
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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s 36(2B) of the Act.
Mandatory considerations
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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is entitled to protection on the ground of serious harm directed at him concerning a dispute over bride price and compensation. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Background
The applicant was born in [Year] on Malaita Island, Solomon Islands. Malaita Island is the most populous island in the Solomon Islands and the second largest island after Guadalcanal. The capital is Auki. In his application for a protection visa, the applicant wrote that his languages included English, local languages and Tok Pisin. At the hearings, he did not require the assistance of an interpreter. He wrote that he completed high school in [Year]. At the hearings, he said he was trained as [an occupation 1] and was [an occupation 1] in the Solomon Islands. Before he came to Australia, he said that he had worked as [an occupation 2] and have spent several seasons as a seasonal worker in [Country] (from 2008 to 2011).
The applicant arrived in Australian [in] December 2011 under a tourist visa. He lodged his application for a protection visa on 16 October 2013. He did not provide any information about his family in the application form but at the first hearing he said that he a brother and [sisters] in the Solomon Islands and no family in Australia. He also said he has children in the Solomon Islands, two sons and a daughter. He said he currently lives in the [City] area and works on [workplace 1s].
In his protection visa application, he wrote that he was married to [Ms A] and she died in June 1996. He wrote that his wife was born on Malaita Island. He wrote that he lived in the following addresses in the Solomon Islands:
2000 to 2002: [Village 1], [District 1], Malaita province
2002 to 2003: [Suburb], [Town 1]
(At the first hearing he said that was incorrect)
2002 to 2004: [Village 2], [Island 1], [Province 1]
2005 to 2007: [Village], [Town 2], [Province 1]
2007 to 2011: [Village 3], [District 2], Malaita Province
(He said at the first hearing that was incorrect also)
2011 to 2012: [Town 3] Qld
Reasons in application
In his application for a protection visa, he wrote the following as his reasons for seeking protection:
I left Solomon Islands for Australia after my life was threatened by relatives and family members of my late de facto wife [Ms A] after she tragically passed away in 1999. Since we stayed together as partners I didn’t pay bride price according to our culture to her parents until she passed away. As a result because she died while being my partner I was liable under our culture to pay compensation for her life as I did not legally own her. Suddenly she died. As a result her relatives demanded me to pay compensation of SBD 250,000 for her life as well as bride price.
I was threatened by her relatives since she passed away and on several occasions I was physically attacked by her relatives On one occasion during of the meetings I had with them trying to resolve the situation I was attacked by a bystander and fell to the ground unconsciously.
Another incident while walking to the market four men attacked me leaving me with a cracked upper lip green fractured wrist.
What I feared was the most now if I happen to go back to Solomon Islands is that I could be killed seeing that some of my later de facto’s wife’s relatives are still holding on to firearms since the ethnic unrest in the Solomon Islands. It was heard several times in the past that these angry relatives threatened me saying they will kill me one day if I still not or fail to pay the compensation upon my arrival back into Solomon Islands this happen for sure.
Family members and close relatives of late de facto wife are the ones who may harm me if I go back and fail to pay compensation.
Why I think that this will happen to me is because I had been confronted by these people several times already in the past who attacked me several occasions leaving me with bodily harm. And also these people are from the most vicious ethnic tribe on Malaita Islands who was known to be responsible for so many deaths during the ethnic tension in Solomon Islands to make things much worse RAMSI will leave Solomon Islands and once that happens my last hope of protection will be gone and these people have nothing else to fear of killing me.
I have already experienced in the past that there’s zero protection from police on me during fatal experience.
Despite the presence of RAMSI in Solomon Islands my life still under threat of these people
Corruption is still alive and well and blooming in Solomon Islands even in the police force itself due to the fact that there are several relatives of the deceased in the police who always played a lot of biasness when dealing with my case in the past.
Statement for reason for delay
He also provided a document explaining the reason for his delay in making the application:
The reason why I did not apply for my protection visa when I first arrived in Australia . I arrived on [in] December, 2011 in Queensland, not long before my visa expired on the 2nd of March, 2012 I sought legal advice on obtaining work visa to work legally in Australia. Unfortunately this Migration Agent in Queensland never did anything at all though I already made an initial upfront payment to him as requested. I never heard anything from him since that day until to date.
Now in January 2013 after a while not hearing anything from the Migration Agent in Queensland, I travelled to live with a friend in [City] Victoria who later advised me to seek legal counsel regarding my case. So on the 17th July, 2013 1 pursed my case on my own and walked in to the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre in Melbourne. However, due to so much workload in their office at that time they then referred me to few legal services in Melbourne to look at my case and if possible, carry it out on my behalf. That’s why I am seeking for possible protection within the Australian Community at the moment.
Statement 28 Sept 2013
The applicant provided a statement concerning his claim for protection:
I left Solomon Islands to Australia [in] December 20 11 o n a Tourist Visa 803 after going through some physical threats and bodily harm on several occasions for over a number of years from relatives of my late de facto wife, [Ms A] who tragically died [in] June 1999.
After her passing away, her relatives demanded me to pay a sum of SBD$250,000-00 according to Malaita culture before I can reclaim my two sons back .
During the height of the recent ethnic unrest which affected Solomon Islands in July 1999 the angry mob from my late de facto wife took advantage and burnt down my house in [Village 4] in Guadalcanal Province and took away from me 3 live pigs as well as my two sons.
I was however fortunate enough to escape unhurt and fled to Malaita my home Island and lived for 3 years (2000-2002) in a remote village called [Village 1]. Life during those 3 years in that remote village was quite tough for me especially without my two kids as they really desperate for my support from me as fat her seeing that t heir mot her was already dead.
In December 2002 I decided to find employment in the city to provide support for my children as well as paying the compensation demand. So I went across to [Town 1]. Unfortunately I can't find any job opportunity at that time due to fear of moving around freely using public transport and also avoiding exposure in public places f or f ear of being seen and harmed by the angry relatives.
Sometimes in March 2003 after learning of my situation a personal friend of mine by the name of Mr [B] in XXXX village [Island 1] in the [Province 1] invited me to live with him for a couple of years up until December 2004. While I was there my relatives back in [Town 1] sent me warning that relatives of my late de facto wife are on the lookout for m e and that hey already knew my whereabouts.
So in January 2005 I travelled further up to [Town 2], [a town in Province 1]. It was then that I was so fortunate to meet a local [man] named [Mr C] who took me to work for him in his family [business] [doing a job task] to be sold in the town' s open market on a daily basis. That casual job was a real help for my daily sustenance until 2007.
It was during one of those times in May 2007 while [doing a job task] in the market that a group of young lads, all strangers, confronted me and asked for my name. Being so innocent and not expecting anything bad to happen I told them genuinely told who I was.
It was at that moment that I begun to sense something was not right as they started to raise their voices angrily and commanded me not to move as they unveiled who they were. 'We are from Malaita, it was our sister that died when she was with you. You didn't even paid any bride price, so don't move ; wait for us here " They moved so fast. It was then that I realised they are relatives of my late de facto wife and knew something terrible is going to happen to me. I made a decision in a split second to leave my boss behind including what i was doing and jumped in our fibre glass boat and sped off to shelter on the island where we lived .
My friend [Mr C] who was also my boss related to me later that night that soon after I left the four lads returned with three other mature men, all armed with bush knives with intentions to kill me right on the spot. [Mr C] knew they would ask for money plus doing other bad things so he called the police but the men left before the police arrived .
The next day being so afraid i boarded a passenger called [Vessel name] to [Town 1] when I arrived in [Town 1] there was a recruitment going on that week for people to work in [Country] so I put my name down.
In November the same year after successfully undergoing medical checkups and police clearance I was confirmed to work for [an Employer type] in [Country] known as [Employer name 1] from February to May 2008 and again from December 2008 to May 2009. The relatives of my late De Facto Wife upon hearing of my arrival in [Town 1] in May 2009 from [Country] arranged for us to meet at [Village 5] on the outskirt of [Town 1] with hope for me to settle their demands.
After explaining to them my hardship in meeting their demands and unless if i have more chances for work in a few more seasons I believe I could meet their demands the father agreed. At this point he started addressing the eager listeners to wait patiently for another period for we will agree on that night .
Before he finished talking angry and being dissatisfied family member and interrupted and started shouting abusively and profane language at me. It was at this moment that another guy bust and assaulted me by hitting my right earlobe and i fell to the ground being unconscious for a moment while the rest of the angry crowd shout ed, " kill him, kill him," including relatives of mine who arrived just in time to sheltered me from further harm until I gained consciousness again before I escaped through the crowd safely. I was aided by a relative at the wharf where I later boarded a passenger boat travelling to [Town 4], Malaita Province that night .
I was fortunate enough to be given additional chances to continue working in [Country], that time it was now for [Employer 2] for consecutive seasons, from [February] 2010 to May 2010, and again from [February] to May 2011.
Having with me on my return to Solomon Islands from [Country] were some money in [Country] currency equivalent to SBD $30,000-00.
Soon after my arrival I planned a formal meeting with a few understanding family members of my late de facto wife to see if they could accept an instalment payment of the SBD$30,000 I have available at that time as part payment of their demand.
Unfortunately four men who claimed to be relatives of the deceased at tackled me while I was walking towards the [Town 1] Market leaving me with few bodily injuries including a scar on my upper lip and a green fracture on my left wrist . The planned meeting never happened as a result from the attack .
My life in [Town 1] was in real danger. I was living in total fear for my safety especially that some family members of the deceased are still holding on to firearms from the recent ethnic unrest .
My most dreadful fear was that these men might use their firearms to kill me once the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) leave Solomon Islands sooner than expected.
I remember so well back in September 2011 while I was with my sister and her husband one evening in their lounge room when I started telling them about the threats I was going through at that time.
In tears and with great emotion my sister said that if these people happen to kill me, it will spark a big tribal war, something very common in Solomon Islands nowadays. She continued to ask me if I could possibly do something to leave Solomon Islands not only for protection reasons but as well as to find means to settle these people' s demand before anything gross might happen to me, or at least to die peacefully in another country, for that matter.
I pondered about what she said and started to take it seriously. So I started to act on her advice as she is my [sister].
As a result I pursued and was luckily granted a Tourist V isa and fled to Australia .
Not long before my Visa expired on the 2nd March 2012 I sought legal advice on obtaining Work Visa to work legally in Australia to help pay the compensation demand seeing none of my relatives are willing to help out .
Unfortunately this Migration Agent in Queensland never did anything at all though I already made an initial upfront payment to him as requested. I never heard anything from him since that day until now.
While still anguishing over the experience with that Migration Agent, I received a devastating phone call from my [sister] in Solomon Islands on the afternoon of the [Date] of September2012 informing me that our dear mum had just passed away that morning. In addition she, however, strongly advised me to nevertheless make any at addition she, however, strongly advised me to nevertheless make any attempt to return toa at end her mourning as my presence there would cause great disturbance during that dark time, another price I had to pay for my life' s safety.
Now in January 2013 after a while not hearing anything from the Migration Agent in Queensland. I travelled to live with a friend in [City] Victoria who later advised me to seek legal counsel regarding my case.
So on the 17th July 2013 I pursued my case on my own and walked in to the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre in Melbourne .
How ever, due to so much workload in their office at that time they then referred me to few legal services in Melbourne to look at my case and if possible carry it out on my behalf.
Tourist application 9 November 2011

The applicant provided very different information about his marriage, his family and his addresses in the Solomon Islands in his application for a tourist visa, dated 9 November 2011.
Family not travelling with you –
[Ms D] wife [Year] [Village 3];
[E] [Year] [District 2]
[F] [Year] Malaita Province
[G] [Year] Solomon Islands
He wrote that he was coming to Australia for a “to have a short break outside of Solomon Islands and to experience Australia lifestyle and culture”.
He wrote that his occupation was buying and selling [produce].
He wrote that he planned to be in Australia rom [date] Nov 2011 to [date] Nov 2011.
He attached a bank statement dated 2 November 2011 and it showed that his address, as far as the bank was concerned, was [Village 3], [District 1], Malaita province. In an attached Brisbane hotel booking, he showed his address as [Village 3, [District 1], Malaita province.
He said at the first hearing that his intention was to come to Australia as a tourist and then apply for a protection visa.
Interview 10 Feb 2015
There was an interview with the delegate on 10 February 2015. He said that he married [Ms A] in 1994 and that he had two children with her. She passed away and her tribe and parents and her family asked for bride price because he still owed it to them. He said that during the Solomon Islands Tensions, people took advantage of the security problem. He said his wife was from Malaita but she belonged to a different tribe. When she passed away, her family started to ask him for compensation. In June 1999, they came to his village and asked for a large amount of money and they burned down his house took his two sons. He said he managed to escape to [Town 1].
He said from 1999 to 2002, he lived in a village in the hill. They took his children and kept them. He said he stayed hidden for a long time and then went to [Town 1] to look for a job. He said he was scared and could not find a job. He said he was living in [Suburb] (a suburb of [Town 1]). He said he could not go back to Malaita so he went to [Province 1] to stay with a friend. His friend helped him get a job and he stayed there until 2004/2005.
The applicant said he lived in [Town 2] ([a town in Province 1]) with a friend. His friend had a [vehicle] and the applicant said he helped his friend [do a job task]. He said that one day, he was in the market and three boys came up to him. He said that they looked like Malaita people. They sat next to him and talked to him. He said that they asked his name and where he came from and he told them. He said they said that he took their sister and did not pay the bride price. He said he was worried and decided to take a boat to go to a small island near [Town 2]. He said his friend told him later that the same boys came back to look for him and that they had knives. He said that his friend told the police.
He said that he then went back to [Town 1]. This was towards the end of 2007. He said that his two sons were still living with his wife’s family and he had no contact with them. He decided that he would find work overseas as a seasonal worker, He gave his details to a recruitment agent. He went to [Country] as a seasonal worker for the first time in 2008 and stayed there for four months.
When he came back, he said that he went to another village for two years. He said that he sent a message to his wife’s family that he wanted to settle this issue of compensation. He then went to [Country] again and came back in May 2009. He managed to save about [Country currency amount]. He said he had no problem with the bride price. The amount was very high. He wanted to negotiate the amount. He said this was the first time he negotiated with them because, before that, he was too scared.
He attended a meeting with his wife’s relatives in June 2009. This took place on the outskirts of [Town 1]. Some chiefs came along to witness the meeting. His wife’s father was there and he asked for the money. He said that he told them that he did not have anything to give them. He was asked by the delegate what happened to the [Country currency amount]. He said he did not have it because he had to pay back his airfares. He said he tried to put some money together and asked for more time to pay. One of his wife’s relatives attacked him. He was punched in the ear and he fell to the ground. He said he did not know if the police were called. He said he heard someone say, “just kill him”. He said he heard his wife’s father say, “give him a chance”. He said that the person who attacked was not a member of his wife’s family but one of a group of youths who attended the meeting. .
He said that after the meeting he went to Malaita. He said that his wife’s family did not where he was living. He said he was living in a village in the mountains on Malaita Island. He said that they discovered where he was in 2010 and he went back to [Country] again for four months. He then came back to Solomon Islands and went to [Province 2] and lived with a friend. He said he tried to arrange to pay off his wife’s family.
He said he agreed to meet them in a shopping centre in [Town 1] on a Saturday at about 3:30 pm. He said on his way to the market, he saw four people and one of them pointed a trifle at him. He heard them say, “there he is”. He was in the market and they said to him that they had to kill him because it had been going on too long. He said that he could arrange something. They said that they were fed up with delay. He said some women in the market tried to calm then down and they overpowered these women and destroyed their stalls. They then attacked him and hit him on the mouth and they kicked me when he was on the ground. He said that one of them reached for a stick and hit him on his wrist. He said that the women in the market intervened and other people came along and pushed them out of the market. He said that the police did not come. There was a police post in the market but there were no police in it at the time. He said he went to the hospital. He said that he decided to leave [Town 1] as he was not safe there anymore.
He said that he then went to [Town 4], [a town in] Malaita, and then to [Location] and stayed there for two days. He said that his sister told him to leave the country because these men would kill him and there might be a tribal war. He decided to go to Australia. He said he could not go to [Country].
He was asked if he could have paid the bride price while he was in Australia. He said he had not yet paid it but he would do it because he was thinking about his sons. He said that these men do not bother his family in Solomon Islands. He said that they have asked his sister where he is. He said that the police would not help him because they are corrupt. He said that some of his wife’s relatives are in the police.
Letter submitted at interview: Letter from Chief [Mr H] 20 Feb 2014
After the interview, the applicant provided the delegate with a letter from Chief [Mr H] dated 20 February 2014. It said:
I am writing this letter to confirm what’s happened to [the applicant] at a meeting held In [Village 5] on the 14th Sunday, 2009. As I am a village chief of [Village 5], I and 2 other chiefs [Mr I] and [Mr J] were attending the meeting to witness the outcomes how these two parties agreed upon. It was on the 14th Sunday, 2009 at 4:30pm the meeting started. Late [Ms A]’s fathers [Mr K] ask if [the applicant] have the money or shell money or both to pay for their daughter’s bride price, and compensation to his tribe and family. [The applicant] that time was looking very nervous and fearing for his life. However he started his apology to the parents and the people of his de facto wife’s tribe. The season he went to [Country] working for a company there, he had only 4 months, and not having enough money to pay off their demands. [The applicant] begged them if they could give him another time, to go back to work for another season, he may come back and give some instalment pay till he completes what they want from him. I knew very well it was 5:30pm that[Mr K] convince and started to explain to his people that he agreed with [the applicant]. [Mr K] then explain to the tribe that [the applicant] will go back to [Country] for another season, when he return we will arrange another meeting for him to pay for the bride price and the compensation.
I saw [the applicant] was standing while youths started talking to themselves and forced themselves towards [the applicant] . I saw someone standing beside [the applicant] wearing blue T Shirt punched him to his ear and he fell to the ground they kicked him and 4 people came in with myself help to shelter [the applicant] from this angry relatives of his defacto wife, the meeting was not ended up peacefully.
As a chief I recommend that [the applicant]’s future is not safe here in the Solomon Islands, as such a small country they will hunt him down anywhere he goes.
File note: 21 April 2015
There is a file note dated 21 April 2015 prepared by the delegate of a conversation with the applicant. It states:
QA review recommended explicitly asking the applicant why he declared on his offshore application that he is married.
I rang the applicant and asked him this. He responded that he was still legally married to another woman (also named [Ms D]) who he had been with in the 1990s before he began his de facto relationship with [Ms A]. He and his wife separated over 20 years ago and have not had contact with each other since that time. There were no children of that relationship. His existing marriage was also part of the reason that [Ms A]'s family took issue with their relationship and demanded a high bride price and compensation. He declared this marriage on his offshore visa application because he thought it was right to tell the truth, even though he and his wife are long since estranged.
Interview 22 May 2015
There was a further interview on 22 May 2015. An email was sent to the applicant by the delegate seeking the applicant comments about some country information. The applicant replied that he wanted to comment in an interview.
The issue concerned observations of an anthropologist that bride price ranged typically from SBD 10,000 to 13,000 and so well before the applicant’s claim of SBF 250,000. The applicant said that there were different customs in Malaita. He showed the delegate videos on his telephone about bride price and shell money in the Solomon Islands which he said proved that it tended to be about SBD 50,000. The applicant said that his wife’s relatives wanted much more than that. He said it was not simply a cultural obligation; rather, some of his wife’s relatives just wanted to demand money from him and if he did not pay it, they would attack him and kill him. He said that they never expected him to pay SBD 250,000. He provided the delegate with extracts from an academic textbook, ‘Manipulation of Custom’. He said that he did not have any money. He said that every time they saw him, they would attack him. He said bride price was very expensive in Malaita. The wife’s relatives wanted bride price as well as compensation. He said he could not negotiate with them.
The applicant said his relationship with his second wife started in 1994. He was asked why he did not pay the bride price back then. He said that he was at the time [an occupation 1] and he did not have the money. He promised his wife’s family that he would pay them ten shell money and SBD 5,000. His tribe had already paid for his first wife and would not pay anymore. He said that his first marriage ended when he lost interest in her and she went back to her parents and then married another man. He started to look for another woman. He said that he could not get back the bride price back for the first wife because he had two children. He said his second wife died from cancer.
The delegate said that SBD 250,000 was 20 times the average income in the Solomon Islands. He said at the time he was [an occupation 1] and he earned SBD 250 a week. He agreed that there was no realistic chance that he would be able to pay SBD 250,000
He said that he had not seen his two sons since they were taken from him in 1999. He maintained that he provides them with financial support. He said someone contacts him and asked for money for school fees and he passed it along through a family member.
He was asked about the incident in [Town 2]. He said that they were young men, about 15 or 16. They said there were relatives of [Ms A] and they called her ‘sister’.
As to the meeting with the chiefs in 2009, he said that they were there to witness any agreement but it failed when he was attacked. He said that his wife’s family lived in that village. He said that in the ten years after he was first asked to pay compensation, her relatives had attacked him and burnt down his house and he had been in hiding. He was asked why he did not negotiate sooner and he said that he did not have any money. He said that at the meeting, her father agreed to give him more time but other relatives attacked him. He was asked why these people would attack him after her father agreed to let him have time, and he replied that young people want to do things on their own, they can.
He was asked why he stopped going to [Country] after 2011. He said that he was getting too old and the agent was getting involved in politics and he did not campaign for her so she excluded him.
He said that there was no conflict between his relatives and the wife’s relatives. He was asked why there would be a tribal war if he was killed and he said it would be because of payback.
He said he had been in Australia since 2011 and lived in Queensland with friends until he received a bridging visa following his application for protection. He said that he would help them at their jobs and they would give me money. He said he has no savings.
He said that police would not help him because his wife’s family are police officers and they did not help him when he was attacked in the market.
Email from dept to app 19 Aug 2015
The delegate emailed the applicant on 19 August 2015:
I have finally obtained a copy of your Tourist Visa Application (see attached). There are two issues which concern me:
You declared that you are married to a woman named [Ms D] who lives in [Village 3]. You failed to declare this in your Protect ion Visa Application. When I rang you on 21 April 2015 to ask why you had failed to declare your marriage, you told me that you were still legally married to another woman named [Ms A]. You told me that you and [Ms A] separated over 20 years ago and have not had contact with each other since that time.
You also told me on 21 April 2015 there were no children of your marriage. However, In your Tourist Visa Application, you declared that you have 3 children, all born more than 20 years ago: [Ms E](born [Year]), [Mr F](born [Year]), and [Ms G](born [Year]). You only declared having one son ([Mr F]), not as stated in our protection claims.
These inconsistencies lead me to doubt the credibility of your protect ion claims. If I do not accept your claims as credible, this may form a reason to ref use to grant you a Protection visa.
I invite you to comment on this information by return email within 28 days from today.
The applicant responded in this way
Question 1
Answer : When you ask me on the 21st of April , 2015 on the phone i said i was legally married to [Ms D – different forms of name] is the same person i just forgot what name i wrote in the tourist application form, so i said [Given name]. During our conversation on the phone maybe i didn’t hear you properly i had said no to your question regarding the children , however in fact we had 3 children. [Ms E]was born [Year],[Mr F] born [Year], and [Ms G]was born in [Year], [Ms G]passed away in 2010.
Question 2
Answer: I declare [Ms A] as my de facto wife, we had 2 children together. The second de facto wife, is the one declared in the protection visa application form that i really had a problem with her families and a tribe as a whole. Which scared me not to return to Solomon Island for my safety, due to some terrible attack i already experience in the pass.
SUMMARY
- [Ms D] we had 3 children(custom married)
- De facto wife [Ms A] (deceased) we had 2 sons
There was no reason for me not to declare [Ms D] but i didn't know then how to fill the protection form, I filled the form myself without assistants.
Delegate’s Decision
In the delegate’s decision 14 September 2015, there was an extract from J Fraenkel’s text ‘The Manipulation of Custom: From Uprising to Intervention in the Solomon Islands .’[1] The delegate commented that Fraenkel found that a significant number of military-style weapons were likely still in the hands of former militants. The applicant said that he suspected that members of [Ms A]’s clan may have some of those weapons. Fraenkel also found that several Malaita militants had cooperated with police and were subsequently given the rank of inspector. The applicant suspects that some of [Ms A]’s clan members may be among those rewarded with police jobs.
[1] (2004) Te Herenga University Press
The delegate noted that the applicant submitted that the following excerpt from Fraenkel ’s book supports his claim that exorbitant sums were demanded as compensation during the tensions:
Christine Jourdan has shown how Honiara-dwelling Malaita liu tapped into an urbanised version of customary compensation practices:
The streetwise liu, those from Malaita in particular, always on the lookout for money, are quick to perceive the advantage they can take of [the compensation] system. Claiming kinship ties and family duties and responsibilities, they will claim compensation from any man who befriends and seduces a female relative, however distantly related she may be and how little he may care for her. Unlike bride wealth payments, compensatory payments do not need to be shared amongst kin; they remain the property of the claimants and the immediate or distant family members who have become aware of the situation. It is an easy way to ‘make a fast buck ’and some of the more desperate youngsters will not hesitate to menace and beat up whoever refuses to pay.
In conflict-prone circumstances, and since under-employed vagrants urgently require cash incomes, the boundaries of acceptable demands were repeatedly extended by the opportunistic propensity to ‘traem nomoa’ ( ‘just give it a try ’) . As anthropologist Jolene Stritecky found during her stay in Gilbert Camp just outside the Honiara Town boundary in the early stages of the Isatabu uprising, plenty of such income generating opportunities presented themselves:
...Throughout my thirteen month stay, I witnessed weekly incidents of violence between or involving Malaitan people... I heard about cases of theft and rape perpetrated by Malaitans, often against other Malaitans, on a regular basis.’
Throughout the 1998-2000 crisis, compensation demands gave a customary flavour to militant activities, both at the elite and grassroots levels. Compensation by demand displaced community negotiation or adjudication about appropriate levels of redress...Over time, required payments escalated. ...
At the national level, compensation demands gave the elite both a mobilising instrument, and a method of extorting large sums of money from the state. Catholic priest Norman Arkwright was asked to chair the ‘Committee of or Compensation for Swearing of Guadalcanal against Malaita people’. This ‘reaffirmed ’ on 22 May 2000 that ‘compensation is in accordance with Malaita customary practices ’ and ‘agreed that the National Government should... meet the problem of paying the amount demanded ’... Arkwright described the committee ’s deliberations as ‘a farce from the moment I was asked to chair it .... The whole exercise was a determined bid to extract $5m from Guadalcanal people and the M al ai t a delegation was operating under the intimidation of the Malaita Eagles who were hovering by the outside gates.’
It was the state that was expected to step in and settle such disputes.

The delegate noted that Fraenkel goes on to recount two past instances where the Solomon Islands government capitulated to Malaitan demands for compensation in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
As to bride price, the delegate was unable to locate any info re custom for compensation for premature death of a bride.
The delegate pointed out that one country information source challenged the credibility of the claimed amount of bride price and compensation the applicant was asked to pay. According to JM (from Temotu Province in the eastern Solomon Islands and former Pacific Islands Research Fellow with the State Society and Governance in Melanesia program at the Australian National University), the amount of the bride price is mostly between SB$ 10,000 and $13,000 cash and another SB $4,000 to $5,000 to meet the cost of ceremonies and This is substantially lower than the SB $250,000 the applicant claimed was demanded of him (albeit that amount incorporates a compensation claim). The delegate noted that she put this adverse country information to the applicant for comment on 15 M ay 20 15. He elected to comment at a second interview, which was held on 22 May 2015.
The delegate observed that, at the second interview, the applicant showed him two videos on his phone which he streamed from [social media]. He explained that the first depicted a Malaitan bride price ceremony. It contained footage of about 50 pieces of shell money strung up for viewing. The applicant explained that this shell money would be worth between SBD 50,000 and SBS 75,000. In contrast, the delegate observed, he explained that the second video depicted a Temotu bride price ceremony showed several pieces of inferior quality (all white)shell money being laid out for viewing. The applicant submitted that this shows there is a big difference between the amount of the bride price in [Mr I]’s home province and those in Malaita province.
The delegate found that the applicant provided good detail and that his answers were consistent over both interviews. He observed that the country information supported the applicant’s claim that there was a degree of lawlessness at the time in the Solomon Islands. The country information was that the traditional custom of bride price had been distorted by the evolution of a modern cash economy. There were reports of serious violence during disputes about bride price in 2009. The delegate gave some weight to the country information that the amount of bride price compensation in this case was high but, for the reasons set out in Fraenkel’s text, it was plausible that it could be that high.
The delegate noted that 15 years was a long time for a dispute to sustain itself but he accepted that it was plausible based on the country information.
The delegate found that the applicant’s explanations for his delay in making the application for protection were plausible. However, the contradictory information he provided in his application for a tourist visa undermined his credibility. She concluded that the applicant had fabricated his claim. Therefore, he did not have a genuine fear of persecution.
AAT Decision 2 June 2018
The applicant set down a review of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal’s predecessor. There was a hearing on 18 March 2018.
At that hearing, he said that he was another woman with three children called [Ms D], He said that when he filled in the form, he had two wives. At the second interview, he said she had an affair. He said that when he spoke to the delegate at the second interview, he was on top of a cherry picker. He called her back and he may have made a mistake because he used two names, [Name 1] or [Name 2] , and he did not remember which name he put in the tourist application. He was asked why he used the name [Name 2]. He said it was because she used that name normally even though [Name 1] was her official first name. He was asked why he told the delegate he had no children. He said that he thought he was asked a different question and when he called the delegate back, he told him about it and then he sent the applicant an email and he responded by explaining he had three children with [Ms D] and one died in 2010 so he had two living children with [Ms D]. He was asked why this was not in the application. He said that he did the applicant by himself and he did i not know where to put his second wife’s name so he filled in the other family in this form.
The applicant said that he did not put her in the protection visa application form because he had a problem with her family. He said he did not understand the form. He was asked why he did not mention the previous wife and three children in the first interview. He said he did not think it was relevant as he was not legally married to the first wife not unless bride price. He said he paid the first bride price and then in 1994 he started living with [Ms A].
He said that he had two sons, [Mr L] and [Mr M], and he could not remember which form he put them in. They are both still with his wife’s relatives.
He said [Ms A] died June 1999. He said that after a mob burned down his house and his sons were abducted, he fled to a village in Malaita province, the same province where his wife’s family come from. He said that he went there and stayed in hiding in the mountains. He stayed there from February 2000 to November 2002 because it was remote. He then travelled there by boat to [Town 4] and then the village. He was asked why, if his wife’s relatives had burned down his house, he went to the same province as her relatives. He said went via boat to [Town 4] and hid himself and went then to the village. He then went back to [Town 1] and then to [Province 1] and then a [village] and [Town 2]. He said he thought it would be safe but his relatives told him he was discovered so he went back to [Town 2] and stayed there with a friend. He thought there would be no relatives of the family there. He said that in May 2007, four young men came up to him and asked for his name and he told them. He asked why he told them his name. He said that Malaita people look different, and he thought they were from Malaita. He did not think anything would happen, He said he then fled back to the village and he was later told they and others had come back with knives and so his friend called the police. He then went back to Malaita. To avoid being spotted at the wharf, his friend arranged for him to meet the boat offshore.
Back in [Town 1], in about May 2007, he applied for seasonal work in [Country]. He was living with his sister at the time. He applied and was accepted. His sister lived in [Suburb], on the outskirts of [Town 1]. He said he went to [Country] in February 2008. He was back in Solomon Islands and about 8 months later, he crossed over to [Province 2] and his plan was to go back to [Country] again. He waited in a village and went back to [Country] in December 2008 and he stayed there until May 2008. When he came back to Solomon Islands, he stayed with friends in [Province 2],
In May 2009, he was back in [Town 1] again and he was attacked. He tried to hide and he said he wanted to see his children so he arranged a meeting in [Village 5]. He wanted to have a chance to repay the compensation and bride price. At the meeting, his wife’s relatives asked him if they brought them what they wanted and he said that he needed another season and he would have it. His father said that was fine and to give him a chance but someone next to him hit him on the head and he fell down. Others shouted out abuse and said they did not want to listen to old men talking. He said that they heard them say, kill him. He escaped back to [Town 1] and then went back to Malaita. His daughter picked up his passport in [Town 1]. His oldest son lived in the village in Malaita.
He went back to [Country] and returned to Solomon Islands in May 2010. He was in [Town 1] and then went to [Province 2] and then back to Malaita. Then he went back to [Country] for the final time and came back to [Town 1] in May 2011. He said he could not stay in one place for too long and so he moved around a lot. By now he had about SBD 30,000 and he wanted to speak to his wife’s father again and ask them if her family would accept this as payment and then go back to [Country] get more money. He arranged to meet them and that he was in [Market] and they attacked him. He said that he told them he arranged something and they said, ”no, we have to do something to you”, and they damaged the women’s market and they pushed them. He said that they tried to hit him and they punched him in the mouth. He said a friend tried to call the police but there were no police in the market. That was the end of the possibility of making and so he escaped. He went to the hospital and then travelled back to [Town 4] with a cast on his arm. He said he was not worried about going back to Malaita because his wife’s clan lived in the [direction 1] part of Malaita. He stayed in [Location] which is one [direction 2] side, about two kms from [Town 4]. He was staying with his sister and she told him he had to leave the country. He went back to [Town 1], and then he was in Malaita for about two weeks and then back to [Suburb], She got the forms for the tourist visa for him. He then went back to [Province 2] and I stayed there until I got the visa and then arrived here.
He said that even though there was a RAMSI mission at the time, there were no police in the market and they did not come when his friend called them,
He said that he put the wrong family in the application form because he forgot what name he put in because they were both called [Name 2] and he forgot to put in [Name 1]. I have never lived in the village he referred to in the tourist forms; he used that address because I moved around. He did not use his sister’s address in [Town] because it was not a real residential address. He said he could only get a back account if he had a job and that was his address when he had that job as [an occupation 1].
First Tribunal Decision
This is dated 2 June 2018. The delegate found the applicant’s evidence wholly unsatisfactory, lacking credibility and reliability. He referred to the ‘evolving’ and ‘changeable’ evidence concerning his family members, marriages and children in the different forms he completed, in the interviews and in his evidence. The delegate listed these contradictions in the decision comprehensively. The delegate found the explanations for these contradictions and inconsistencies to ‘completely unconvincing’. He also found the applicant’s account of his travels around the Solomon Islands to be incoherent and incredible, particularly his claim that he spent a great deal of time in hiding on the same island, Malaita, where his wife’s clan came from. Accordingly, the Tribunal reached the same overall conclusion about the applicant’s credibility as the delegate; that he did not provide credible and reliable evidence and that his claim was fabricated. Therefore, he did not have a genuine fear of persecution.
At the Federal Court
The applicant’s appeal to the Federal Court was successful. The decision is DOD18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 1192. The key passages in Young J’s judgment is at para [44]:
In the present case, the Tribunal provides no reasons for attributing no weight to the Chief’s Letter and the Statutory Declaration. Prima facie, the Chief’s Letter and the Statutory Declaration are the evidence of third parties which supports, in part, the applicant’s claims. There is no attempt by the Tribunal to analyse that evidence or explain why it rejects it. The Tribunals’ reasons are no more than a mere statement that it gave that evidence no weight. The Tribunal does not say, as was the case in S20, that the attribution of no weight to that evidence is in light of the adverse credibility findings of the applicant and that accordingly, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied as to the corroborative evidence. The Tribunal does not engage in any active or intelligent way with the Chief’s Letter or the Statutory Declaration. That this is so, is further evidenced by the absence of any reference to either document or their contents in the transcript. Accordingly, I consider, as submitted by the applicant, that one is left to guess why the Tribunal rejected the Chief’s Letter and the Statutory Declaration and whether, if at all, it engaged intellectually with that evidence.
Reconsideration by the Tribunal
The application was remitted back to the Tribunal. A pre-constitution outreach form was sent to the applicant on 10 December 2024. A hearing invitation notice was sent to the applicant on 18 December 2024. There was a hearing on 17 February 2025. There was a second hearing on 2 April 2025 at which a witness in the Solomon Islands gave evidence but there were technical issues which prevented the witness giving full evidence. Hence, there was a third and final hearing on 5 June 2025.
Further material provided to the Tribunal
Ahead of the first hearing, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a statutory declaration, sworn in 7 February 2025. It states
1. I confirm that I was previously married to [[Ms D] (birth name [D]) (d.o.b. [Date]).
2. I separated from [Ms D] about 1990-1991.
3. I entered into a relationship with [Ms A] (d.o.b. [Date]) about 1994.
4. With [Ms D], I had 3 children, [E], [F] and [G]. [G] passed away in 2010.
5. With [Ms A], I had 2 children, [Mr L]and [Mr M].
6. I confirm that I have not lived in [Village 3] since separating from my ex-wife [Ms D]. If I have been recorded as saying anything otherwise, this may have been a misunderstanding. I have not lived with [Ms D] since separating from her.
7. I confirm that I was not living in [Village 3] at the time I made my visitor visa application in November 2011. I was careless and not paying attention to addresses, and I simply put the same registered address that I have put in official applications. As I was relocating a lot in the years after separating from [Ms D], I did not update my residential address, as I did not think it was important and thought it was troublesome. I realise that this was a mistake and regret that I put little care to the applications. I had also applied without legal representation so was not informed or aware at the time that these Incorrect details would have impact on later applications.
8. I confirm otherwise the correctness of my statements to the Department, and to the previous Tribunal. This includes my statement of 28/09/2013 and on the application forms.
Letters from persons who attended the mediation in 2009
The applicant also provided the Tribunal with a number of letters, or witness statements, from persons who said that they were present during the mediation meeting in 2009:
Letter Chief [Mr I] 15 December 2024
I chief [Mr I] son of late chief [Mr H] which I was appointed by the councilors of [Village 5] community after the passing away of my father, a citizen of Solomon Island. On behave of my father and our councilors we were pleased to offer our support of [the applicant o whom we have known him for bringing up this issue to our house of chief and councilors in 2009. [The applicant] is a happy family man, married first to [Ms D] and after to [Ms A].
It was a tough case for me [Mr I] to witnessed my father late chief [Mr H] who try to settle both sides to come to one term for solve the issue between [the a[[licant] and and late [Ms A] family and relatives. According to relatives of late [Ms A] mother of two sons, [the applicant] didn't settle his problem with her relative with compensation and bride price according to their culture before she tragically died on June 1999.
Our first meeting at [Village 5] community was to hear what [Ms A] relatives demand, which they demand [the applicant] to pay compensation with the total amount of SBD $250,000-00. According to them, [the applicant] has to pay compensation of SBD$100,000-00, fifty shell money valued SBD$50,000-00 for unsettle issue which he failed to compensate before settle the bride price paying traditionally according to their culture before she died which they believed it was the course causing [Ms A] her life. SBD$50,000-00 cash to share among her relatives, and SBD$50,000-00 cash to claim back his two sons which still with them.[The applicant] tries to convince them to pay instalment with a mount of SBD$30,000-00 but they don't accept it, they demand him to pay in full amount.
The meeting was turn out violence which everyone witnesses how they physically attacked [the applicant] causing him some series injuries. Tension between both parties high with violence so my father chief [Mr H] decide to postponed the meeting as to give them both parties time. It was an on-going case; my father late Chief [Mr H] talked with both parties representative to resume our next meeting on date agreed in the future when [the applicant] have what [Ms A] family members demanded him.
I [Mr I] son of late [Mr H] u who witnessed the event was really concerned for [the applicant] safety which he has also been attacked in public places in [Town 1] in several places, they’ve threatened to kill him with any weapon and also using black magic which is the most dangerous killing with our law won’t protect him.
Letter, [Mr J], 15 December 2025
I [Mr J] councillor of [Village 5] chief council a citizen of Solomon Islands. On behalf of us coluncillors I was pleased to offer my support of [the applicant] to whom I have known for being part of his issue which held at [Village 5] Chief Council in 2009
Our meeting at [Chief] Council in [Village 5] community was held by late chief [Mr H] father of our current chief [Mr I] and all us councillors was about [the applicant] to pay compensation with the total amount of $250,000 demanded by late [Ms A] family and relatives.[Ms A] mother of two sons is other applicant] second wife after living first wife [Ms D] s mother of two daughter and a son. According to relatives of late [Ms A] mother of two sons [the applicant] didn’t settle his problem according to their culture before she tragically died on June 1999.
According to [Ms A] family demanded SB 100,000 and fifty shell money valued SBD 50,000 for not settling the bride price paying traditionally before she died. SBD 50,000 cash to be share among her relatives and SBD50,000 cash to claim back his two sons which still with them. [The applicant] tries to pay installment with amount of SBD 30,000 but they don’t accept it, they physically attacked [the applicant] causing him some injuries and demand him pay full amount.
So late chief [Mr H] talked with both parties representative to resume our next meeting when [the applicant] have what [Ms A] family members demanded him.
I councillor [Mr J] also witness the event between both parties high with violence was really worried for [the applicant] safety.
[Mr N] Pastor letter dated 15 December 2024
I [Mr N] elder pastor of [Village 5] SSEC [Town 1] and a citizen of Solomon Islands. I am pleased to offer my support of [the applicant] to whom I have known him for being part of his problem solving at [Village 5] community held by chief council in 2009.
I [Mr N] as the community pastor who was also part of the meeting held between [the applicant] and [Ms A] family members demanding him to pay in full amount SBD 250,000 based on their culture because [the applicant] did not settle his problem before she died on June 1999, it was a tough case for the elder chiefs. Councillors and my self-church pastor who we tried both sides to solve the issue peacefully.
The outcome was violent and I witness how they harassed him and how they physically attacked [the applicant] causing him some injuries, it was an ongoing case and chief [Mr H] boycott our next meeting to resume our next meeting on the date agreed in the future.
According to [the applicant], before the meeting he tried to find ways to solve his problem but was attacked in public places several times.
Letter [Mr O] dated 17 October 2024

[Mr O] is the applicant’s brother. The applicant said that he was too unwell to give evidence at a hearing as he was undergoing very serious [surgery] because of his [medical condition]. In his letter, he wrote
My name is [Mr O] from [District 1], [Village 6], Malaita Province. I am a Solomon Island citizen and I'm happy to offer my support letter of [the applicant] to whom I have personally known him for over [number] years from his childhood to mature ages as my [brother]. [The applicant] was married to [Ms D] from [Village 3], mother of two daughters and a son.[The applicant] also had another woman called [Ms A] from [direction 1] Malaita.
In 1994 [the applicant] left [Ms D] due to some family issue and took [Ms A] as his second wife and had two sons. [The applicant] did not pay bride price to [Ms A] family before [Ms A] pass away in 1999. This happens during the height of the tenson between Malaita and Guadalcanal people. Making things worst people are taken advantage of the tension situation; They even burnt down his house at [Village 4] Guadalcanal province and also took away some of his valuable things killing three pigs and took away his two sons and still remain with them till today.
During that period of time compensation is very high, people demanding bride price unbelievably and [the applicant] is a victim of it.
In 2009 [the applicant] and the Chief of [Village 5] arrange a meeting with [Ms A] family and some Trible man if they can reduce the bride price and compensation to a reasonable price.
Unfortunately, the meeting or the hearing was not end properly, the young bystander relative of late [Ms A] hit [the applicant], he fell on the ground and they attacked him coursing him some series injuries, but fortunately he was alive.
So many times, they attacked him in town, they followed him when he went to other province for his safety and also attacked him. So many times, this people came to my house and harass me with my family, some group came very violent and ask for shell money which cost $1,500-00 - $2,000-00 SBD each. Now the issue is not family, but a Trible issue coursing [the applicant] life in danger especially by himself in public places.
I [Mr O] as [the applicant] [brother] confirming that in all the time I have known him, [the applicant] has been a reliable, trustworthy and decent person. We family recommend for his safety and our family safety and peace between our tribble group. He [the applicant] has to live in Australia where he will be protected and safe.
Evidence at the hearings
At the first hearing, the applicant said that his home was [Village 6], Malaita Island. This is located on the [direction 3] of Malaita Island. He said his wife’s clan are from the [Region] of Malaita which is in the [direction 4] of Malaita. He said he speaks English, [Language 1] and Tok Pisin. He said he completed secondary school and then applied to become [an occupation 1]. He completed his [occupation 1] training in 1983 and [did occupation 1] for the next 8 years.
He said that he met his first wife who was from [Village 3] which is in the [direction 5] of Malaita. He said he and his family paid the bride price. The marriage ended when she had an affair in 1990. They had three children but one passed away. He went to [Town 1] and his children lived with his brothers in [Village 6].
In [Town 1], as he had left his [occupation 1] position, he found work on [workplace 2s] and as [an occupation 2].
He met his second wife in 1995. She spoke [Language 2]. The applicant said he did not speak that language and they communicated with each other in Tok Pisin. When they began living together, her family asked him for bride price. They wanted 5 shell money and SBD 5,000. He did not have the money but at the time and he promised he would pay them later. Her father agreed. They lived in [Village 4] and he was a farmer. She died in 1999 and he believes that she died from cancer. They had two children, both sons born in [Years].
The burial took place in [Town 1]. Her family asked again for the bride price. At the time, many of his wife’s clan had moved from Malaita to [Village 5], a settlement on the outskirts of [Town 1].
He said that later a group of members of her clan came to his house and demanded the bride price. They said they wanted SBD 250,000. He said that they broke through the door and he escaped through a window. He left the children behind and they took them away. They took his pigs and damaged his garden and burnt down the house.
He said that he did not tell the police at the time but he told the police in [Town 4] that they had taken his children. He then went to [Village 1] and lived there for two years. He said he was passing through [Town 4] and he told the police about what had happened to his children. He said the police told him that they would not do anything about it.
The applicant said he then went to [Town 1] and complained to the police in [Suburb], a suburb of [Town 1]. They told him the same thing, that they would not do anything about it.
He was asked why he went to Malaita Island when that is where his wife’s clan come from. He said he felt safe there. He said that he wanted to negotiate with them about the bride price and compensation.
In 2001, he said he went to [Village 2] in [Province 1]. He stayed there for about 6 months. He did not tell anyone about what had happened to him. He said he supported himself by fishing and farming. He said that a friend told him that people were looking for him so he went to [Town 2] and stayed with another friend for about a year. He helped this friend with his [job task]. He stayed there until some members of his wife’s clan showed up. He was in the market when four youths started chatting with him. He said that they looked like they were from Malaita. He told his name and that he was from Malaita. They said they were relatives of his late wife and that there was a big problem. He said that they started swearing and told him to wait and they left. He decided to escape. His friend helped him meet a boat offshore going to [Town 1]. His friend told him that the youths had come back and had knives, He said he called the police.
He was back in [Town 1] in 2003. He said it was the only safe place he could go. He kept a low profile but heard about seasonal work in [Country]. He went to [Country] for 6 months and then came back to [Town 1]. He stayed there for a few months and then went back again to [Country].
He went to [Country] four times. He had the meeting with his wife’s relatives in [Village 5] in 2009. The idea was that he would try and negotiate about paying the bride price and compensation in instalments. He said that his wife’s father agreed but he heard someone rushing at him and he was hit on the side of the head. He said he fell down and he heard someone say they would kill him. The chiefs came to his aid. He was unconscious. He was taken away to his sister’s house in [Suburb]. He left [Town 1] for [Village 6]. He stayed there for a few weeks before he went back to [Country].
He said he was in [Country] for about 8 months and when he returned, he went to [Province 2]. He stayed there for a few weeks and then went back to [Country] again.
In 2010, he arranged to meet his wife’s father again and sort out payment of the money. He had with him SBD 30,000. He contacted Chief [Mr H]. He said Chief [Mr H] that some of her wife’s relatives wanted to kill him and that it was not about compensation anymore. He was on his way to a meeting with them when he was set upon by a group of youths at the [market]. There were four of them. Some women with stalls in the market tried to help him. The men tipped over their stalls. He was struck by a piece of woold. There were no police in the market at the police post. A friend of his called the police but they did not come.
He went to [Hospital] and his arm was put in a cast. He then went to stay with his sister in [Suburb] for a few weeks. She told him to leave the country because if he was killed there would be tribal violence. He left about two weeks later.

100. He said that after his last trip to [Country], he went to stay with friends in [Location] in [Province 2].
101. He said that he had not spoken to his children and he is not in contact with his sisters but he stays in touch with his brother.
102. He said that he said people from his wife’s clan are still looking for him. He said last year, they went to [Village 6] and asked where he was.
103. He said that he could not get any more work in [Country] as he was too old and because the recruitment agent was getting involved in politics and she was angry that he did not campaign for her.
The third hearing
104. There was a second hearing at which there was an attempt to take evidence from a witness in the Solomon Islands but there were technical issues. At that hearing, the Tribunal heard from Chief [Mr H]’s son.
105. He said that his father had passed away and he was now the chief. He said that he did not know the applicant except for his appearance at the mediation in 2009. He said that he was present at the meeting. He said his statement was written for him by a member of the council who could write English. He dictated the statement. He said that the meeting was about compensation and bride price from the applicant. He said they wanted the applicant to pay SBD 250,000. The applicant’s wife was [Ms A] and she had died. The applicant had not paid the bride price. Her father was at the meeting. The witness’ father was the mediator. He said that SBD 50,000 to 70,000 was reasonable for bride price. He said in this case the money was for the unpaid bride price and also compensation for the death of [Ms A]. He said the applicant wanted to pay it in instalments. His brother and sister attended the meeting. His wife’s father agreed to being paid in instalments but other relatives disagreed and wanted to be paid in full. Someone kicked the applicant and he fell over, He was kicked again. Council members intervened and stopped the fighting. The meeting was shut down. He said that the police did not come to the meeting. He said his father tried to organise another meeting but it never happened. He was asked about what he wrote in his statement, about attacks and threats against the applicant and he said some of his relatives told him about it.
106. He said that the police were called to come to the meeting when the fighting broke out but they did not come because they did not have enough officers.
107. The applicant also gave further evidence at this hearing. He said that his wife’s father said that he could have more time to make the payments. He said that the meeting began in the afternoon and there were about 20 people in the meeting house. The purpose of the meeting was to resolve the issue of payment. It was other members of his wife’s clan who would not let him have time to pay.
108. The applicant agreed that it was part of the cultures of Solomon Islands for young people to respect their elders but he said that the Tensions and other changes had caused that to change and young people do not respect their elders like they used to. He also said that
109. The applicant was asked about a news report in [News source] [June 2010] entitled ‘[Title]’:
[Quotation about Country’s seasonal work scheme, naming and quoting the applicant]

110. The applicant denied at first that he made these remarks. He said he was telephoned when he was in [Country] by someone who was asking about conditions of Solomon Islanders in [Country]. He was considered to a team leader because he had taken four trips so far. He said they were from the radio but they did not say who they were.
111. It was pointed out to the applicant that he was last in [Country] in May 2010 and this article was published in November 2010. He said that the company wanted him to be recruitment agent for them but he was too scared because he was in hiding. He accepted that he might have been called a recruitment agent by the company. It was pointed out that his comments were very clear and cogent and well-written and sounded like they were from a press release. He said that he did not draft a press release or provide these remarks to the reporter.
112. He was again why he gave misleading statements about his wife, marriage and children and his address in the tourist application. He said that he was worried that if he provided the real information as at the time, the information might be checked out and it would seem like he was running from trouble.
113. He said that when he was attacked in the market, he did not call the police but his friend did. He then said it was two friends. He was asked how he knew that they had called the police and he said he was in the room with them. He was asked why then he did not himself call the police and he was not able to provide an answer. However, the Tribunal notes that he said that his arm or wrist was broken during the attack.
114. He confirmed that he told the police about the destruction of his house and the kidnapping of his children in 1999 and then complained to them again a couple of years later in [Town 4].
115. He said that it did not occur to him to apply for protection in [Country] because he never planned to stay there but rather, he wanted to earn enough money to pay back his wife’s relatives and return to the Solomon Islands.
116. He said that over the years he has been in Australia he has not attempted to make any payments to his wife’s relatives.
117. He said that he believes they are still interested in him because about two years ago they visited his brother and asked him for money and he gave them one shell money and they left him alone.
118. The applicant said that he did not pay the bride price at the time when he was with his second wife because they never had the money. He agreed with his wife’s father that if they have a daughter, he will get the bride price for her. As it turned out, he only had sons.
Representative’s submissions
119. The applicant’s representative provided written submissions. He summarised the applicant’s claims in this way: He has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of belonging to a particular social group of individuals who have failed to comply with customary law/expectations (or perceived to have shown disrespect of customary law/expectations) in the Solomon Islands; he has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of belonging to a particular social group of individuals who have failed to settle their bride price and shell money compensation obligations for entering a marriage, or marriage-like relationship; he was a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of entering into an unsanctioned and/or adulterous relationship in violation of customary expectations; and a well -founded fear of persecution on the basis of inter-tribal and inter-clan tensions punctuated by perceived disrespect of the aggrieved clan.
120. He submits that the threats of harm that were made against the applicant arise not merely on the basis of the financial incentives of owing “bride price” or payment of “shell money” alone. The ‘exorbitant and capricious increased demand” of the shell money amount (from the initial SB$5,000 to the excessively higher amount of SB$250,000) meant the applicant was a victim of a group of aggrieved individuals are intent on punishing the applicant in addition to seeking financial recompense.
121. The representative submitted that
“… whether the grievance is rooted in the applicant’s entry into a relationship without their leave and in an adulterous manner and/or in his actions in not abiding by the customary law and expected conduct in the Solomon Islands in paying a bride price while the applicant was in a relationship with one of their own – and thereby constituting a repudiation of the kastom system that has traditionally been held by many individuals in the Solomon Islands to be of great importance – the attacks against the applicant have been unrelenting and sustained. If the account of the applicant were to be believed, it would appear the members of the [Ms A] clan are intent on visiting harm upon the applicant and hold little interest in enabling him any prospect of assuaging them but for payment in full, whether by part-payment of the demanded SB$250,000 or by offering instalment payments. This is evident by the applicant’s account and corroborated by the account of the [Village 5] Council Chief’s observation that the members of the [Ms A] clan attacked him despite [Ms A]’s own father expressing openness to accepting the proposal of the applicant.”

122. It is submitted that the applicant’s efforts to involve the police were ignored by the police. The representative refers to country information about police effectiveness in the Solomon Islands.
123. The representative submits that there is no basis for the Tribunal to draw adverse inferences about the applicant’s credibility.
124. The representative refers comprehensively to country information about customary dispute resolution and police effectiveness in the Solomon Islands.
125. A substantial part of the representatives submissions concerned the applicant’s credibility about his marriage and children, his travels around the Solomon Islands from 1999 to 2019, and his presence in [Town 1] in 2010 . Despite the trouble and care the representative took to explain these serious inconsistencies and contradictions, the Tribunal found them to be unconvincing.
126. The representative submits that applicant faces persecution from his deceased ex-partner [Ms A’s] clan members and that he be located again should he return to the Solomon Islands.
127. The representative submits in particular
“The actions are reflective of a systematic and discriminatory targeting of the applicant on the basis of him being imputed to be a class of individual who must be vilified, rather than being purely opportunistic or monetarily motivated attacks. The particular targeting of the applicant is consistent with the fact that family members, such as his brother [Mr JO], were also implicated and accosted at an attenuated level – with the [Ms A] clan members content to allow repayment contributions in smaller sums. It is evident however that the applicant is being targeted for particularly severe retributive action by the perpetrators in this case. This provides a factual\nexus between the fear of harm being for a s. 5J(1) prescribed reason”

128. The representative also submits that ‘it would be reasonable to find that there is a general toleration, if not condonation, of the type of activity engaged by the perpetrators against the applicant, both by reason of the expectation of law enforcement authorities that Kastom-related matters ought to be resolved informally and extra-judicially, and also by the general broader incapacity and disinterest from police in providing intervention, protection or assistance in any such matters, even where there is threat of violence.’ The Tribunal does not accept this submission as there was no evidence of police condonation. At its highest, the evidence could be described as a lack of interest.
129. The representative submits that the interest of the applicant’s wife’s clan in him is a continuing one.
130. The representative submits alternatively an alternative claim based on complementary protection. There is a real risk that the applicant could experience significant harm in the form of torture, arbitrary deprivation of life and cruel and or inhumane and or degrading treatment and or punishment. Relocation to different part of the Solomon Islands would not reduce the risk as it is applied under this criterion; there is no effective state protection in the sense that it is applied under the complementary protection criterion.
The applicant’s case
131. This is that the applicant could experience serious harm in the form of serious intimidation and harassment, threats of violence, actual violence and death from members of his wife’s clan. This serious harm would be directed at him in a systematic way for a S 5J(1)(a) reason because he is a member of a particular social group. The representative defined this in this way:

Findings – general principles
172. In SZLVZ v MIAC, the Federal Court commented that ‘in assessing credibility, the Tribunal must be sensitive to the difficulties often faced by applicants and should give the benefit of the doubt to those who are generally credible but are unable to substantiate all of their claims’.[17] See also UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection (‘UNHCR Handbook’):
[17] SZLVZ v MIAC [2008] FCA 1816 at [25].
203. After the applicant has made a genuine effort to substantiate his story there may still be a lack of evidence for some of his statements. As explained above (paragraph 196), it is hardly possible for a refugee to “prove” every part of his case and, indeed, if this were a requirement the majority of refugees would not be recognized. It is therefore frequently necessary to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt.
204. The benefit of the doubt should, however, only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant’s general credibility. The applicant’s statements must be coherent and plausible and must not run counter to generally known facts.

173. The courts have not endorsed a free standing ‘benefit of the doubt’ obligation and various judgments have expressed doubts as to its existence under Australian law.[18] In particular, it is questionable whether such an approach is consistent with the statutory requirement for a decision-maker to be ‘satisfied’ of the matters set forth in s 65 of the Act. When assessing claims, the Tribunal must make findings of fact in relation to the claims. In this case the applicant appeared before the Tribunal via video link to give evidence. The Tribunal is aware of the difficulties faced by refugee applicants, including nervousness and anxiety of appearing before the Tribunal, and stress caused by separation from home and family, especially in the light of the guidance contained in the Gender Guidelines. The benefit of the doubt should be given to an applicant who is generally credible but unable to substantiate all his or her claims.
[18] SZNRZ v MIAC [2010] FCA 107 at [20]
174. However, the mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is 'well-founded' or that it is for the reason claimed. That an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to 'significant harm'. The applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that all the statutory elements are made out. It is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all the particulars in support of their claim that they are a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence in support of the claim. Under s s.5AAA of the Act, the Tribunal is not responsible or obliged to specify, or assist in specifying any particulars of the claim, or to establish or assist in establishing the claim. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any or all the allegations made by an applicant. [19]
[19] MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70
175. If an applicant’s account appears credible, they should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt. However, such a benefit should only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statements must be coherent and plausible and must not run counter to generally known facts.
176. On these issues of credibility, the Tribunal is mindful of the warnings in the cases such as CQO23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs,[20] Guo Wei Rong and Pan Run Juan v Minister of Immigration[21] and Abele v Commonwealth. In Guo Wei Rong and Pan Run Juan at [26]:
[20] [2025] FCA 97; [1996] FCA 1263
[21] [1999] HCA 14
It is well to remember that self-contradictory statements and apparent evasiveness, although of obvious importance, do not necessarily require a conclusion that the witness is being untruthful in those aspects of his or her evidence or, more significantly, that the whole of his or her evidence should be rejected. Exaggeration or even fabrication of parts of a witness's testimony does not exclude the possibility that there is a hard core of acceptable evidence within the body of the testimony. Where proof beyond reasonable doubt is required, self-contradiction, inconsistency and evasiveness may, of course, give rise to sufficient doubt to warrant the rejection of evidence. However, in cases where only a real possibility need be shown, care must be taken that an over stringent approach does not result in an unjust exclusion from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted.

In Abele at page 22:[22]
[22] (1999) 197 CLR 510 per Gleeson CJ and McHugh J at [82]
…the fact that an applicant for refugee status may yield to temptation to embroider an account of his or her history is hardly surprising. It is necessary always to bear in mind that an applicant for refugee status is, on one view of events, engaged in an often-desperate battle for freedom, if not life itself.

Real chance test
177. The test for determining well-founded fear was enunciated by the High Court in Chan v MIEA.[23] The Court held that ‘well-founded fear’ involves both a subjective and objective element. The definition will be satisfied if an applicant can show genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of persecution for a Convention stipulated reason. Per Dawson J in Chan: [24]
[23] (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 396
[24] Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 396. See also MIEA v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 263
The phrase “well-founded fear of being persecuted...” contains both a subjective and an objective requirement. There must be a state of mind - fear of being persecuted - and a basis - well-founded - for that fear.

178. The subjective element of ‘well-founded fear’ concerns the state of mind of the applicant. Whether an applicant has a genuine fear is a question of fact. The relevant question is whether the applicant has a present fear of a risk of harm in the reasonably foreseeable future. A past lack of fear or trepidation is not necessarily inconsistent with a well-founded present fear of future harm. [25]
[25] SZDGB v MIAC [2006] FMCA 341 at [19]
179. For a fear to be well-founded, there must be a factual or objective basis for that fear. Thus, ‘a well-founded fear’ requires an objective examination of the facts to determine whether the fear is justified. [26] A fear of being persecuted is well-founded if there is a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted. In Chan v MIEA Mason CJ, the expression ‘a real chance’:[27]
[26] Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 429
[27] Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 389
… clearly conveys the notion of a substantial, as distinct from a remote chance, of persecution occurring. ... If an applicant establishes that there is a real chance of persecution, then his fear, assuming that he has such a fear, is well-founded, notwithstanding that there is less than a fifty per cent chance of persecution occurring. This interpretation fulfils the objects of the Convention in securing recognition of refugee status for those persons who have a legitimate or justified fear of persecution on political grounds if they are returned to their country of origin.

See also McHugh J:
[A] fear may be well-founded for the purpose of the Convention and Protocol even though persecution is unlikely to occur. ... an applicant for refugee status may have a well-founded fear of persecution even though there is only a 10 per cent chance that he will be ... persecuted. Obviously, a far-fetched possibility of persecution must be excluded.

180. The fact that an individual’s claims of persecution may be plausible or credible is not enough to establish a real chance of persecution Dawson J stated: [28]
[28] Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 429; Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 397.
“Well-founded” must mean something more than plausible, for an applicant may have a plausible belief which may be demonstrated, upon facts unknown to him or her, to have no foundation.

A fear of persecution is not well-founded if it is merely assumed or if it is mere speculation. In MIEA v Guo, the Court said:[29]
[29] MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 572; cf MIEA v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 293
Conjecture or surmise has no part to play in determining whether a fear is well-founded. A fear is “well-founded” when there is a real substantial basis for it. As Chan shows, a substantial basis for a fear may exist even though there is far less than a 50 per cent chance that the object of the fear will eventuate. But no fear can be well-founded for the purpose of the Convention unless the evidence indicates a real ground for believing that the applicant for refugee status is at risk of persecution. A fear of persecution is not well-founded if it is merely assumed or if it is mere speculation.

Findings in this case
Nationality
181. According to the protection visa application, the applicant claims to be a citizens of the Solomon Islands and provided a copy of the biodata page of his Solomon Islands passport to the Department. Based on this material, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is who he says he and a national of the Solomon Islands. Solomon Islands is therefore the receiving country for the purpose of assessing the applicant’s claims for protection.
Credibility issues and specific findings
182. The delegate and the Tribunal in the first decision made findings about the applicant’s credibility with which this Tribunal broadly agrees. It is not necessary to set these credibility findings in detail because, despite the applicant’s poor credibility on certain issues, the Tribunal in this decision accepts that there is a core of truth to the applicant’s claim.
183. The Tribunal found the applicant’s information in the tourist visa application to be false and deliberately misleading. His explanations to the delegate and to the Tribunal in the first decision were unconvincing. He explained at the final hearing to this Tribunal that he did not provide the true information about his marriage and children because he did not want anyone here to know about his problems in the Solomon Islands as he thought he would not be permitted to come here as a tourist.
184. The applicant, in providing that false information and also weak and flimsy excuses for it to the delegate and the first Tribunal, created difficult problems for himself. However, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s explanation at the final hearing, however misguided his reasons were. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant would not be the first applicant for a protection visa who provided false information to the department. What matters ultimately is where an applicant has on all of the evidence a viable claim for protection and, as will be set out below, the Tribunal finds that he does.
185. The Tribunal had particularly difficulty with the applicant’s credibility concerning his evidence about his employment as described in the newspaper article. The Tribunal found the applicant’s answers about this to be very concerning. The Tribunal does not accept his explanation about it at all. The Tribunal finds instead that at the time of the article the applicant had a role in the recruitment organisation as a recruitment agent and knew what he was doing when he had his comments published in the newspaper report. His answers at the hearing were wholly unconvincing and did not do him any credit at all as an honest and credible witness.
186. However, as the delegate noted in the original decision, the applicant provided generally consistent evidence about his travels around the Solomon Islands and the Tribunal notes that his evidence before the first Tribunal and in the hearings before this Tribunal were also consistent. The first Tribunal was concerned about the applicant’s evidence that he went back to Malaita Island to hide when his wife’s family came from there. However, the Tribunal notes that Malaita has a large population with a number of distinct language and cultural groups and a diverse geography. It is also where the applicant’s clan is from. Therefore, the Tribunal does not find it incredible that the applicant would try to hide himself or keep a low profile in a remote part of Malaita.
187. The reason why the Tribunal accepts that there is a core of truth to the applicant’s claim. But for the written and oral evidence of the incident in [Village 5] in 2009, the Tribunal would have reached the same conclusion as the delegate and the first Tribunal, finding him to be witness without any credibility. However, this written and oral evidence supports the applicant’s evidence about the nature of the dispute between himself and members of his wife’s clan.
188. The Tribunal does not find that the applicant’s evidence about the level of payment demanded by some of the clan members to be incredible. The applicant’s witnesses in writing and orally supported his evidence. There is also the compelling country information evidence about the current compensation culture in the Solomon Islands. Further, the amount sought is not just for bride price but also for compensation because his wife died while married to him. It is true that the sum of SBD 250,000 is far beyond the amount that the applicant could repay but that does not mean that the evidence about it from the applicant and his witness is lacking credibility. It simply means that the sum was unrealistic and exorbitant.
189. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claim that members of his wife’s clan are still interested in him and that the dispute is ongoing and current. The Tribunal accepts the country information evidence about the protracted nature of these kinds of disputes and adopts the delegate’s conclusion that disputes like this can last years and even generations.
190. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that he complained to the police in 1999 and 2002, and his friends complained to the police about the market attack and also accepts his evidence that the police took no steps. The applicant claims that relatives of his wife’s clan were members of the police force but that does not explain why every police officer complained to across different part of the Solomon Islands effectively ignored his complaints; there was no evidence about this other than the applicant’s supposition. Rather, the Tribunal finds that this is an instance of an overall lack of police effectiveness which on the country information was a weakness of the RISPF at the time and today.
191. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s evidence that there were no police in the market police post on the day of the assault: first, the RAMSI police were not conducting ordinary police duties in 2010; and secondly, the market by 4:00 pm on a Saturday would have been closing down and so it seems credible that there would not be police in the post at the time.
192. Taking into account the remaining evidence of the applicant and the written and oral evidence of the applicant’s witnesses, the Tribunal makes the following conclusions:
(1) Members of the applicant’s wife’s clan demanded an exorbitant amount of compensation and bride price from the applicant after her death.
(2) They attacked his house and damaged it and took his sons in 1999,
(3) He then travelled to different parts of the Solomon Islands and lived in hiding or at any rate kept a low profile.
(4) He could not stay permanently in any of those places because he would be found out. The Tribunal accepts that wherever the applicant lived in the Solomon Islands, he would have been easily identified because he would not be able to speak the local languages, or his tok pisin would have a different accent to it or because he would have been a stranger and attract curiosity.
(5) The circumstances of his discovery in [Town 2] are not incredible. The Tribunal accepts that he would have recognised the youths as Malaitan and would have spoken to them and there would have been no reason why he would have thought they were associated with his wife’s clan. [Town 2] in any case is [the largest town] on that island and anyone travelling to that island would have passed through [Town 2] and stopped there for a time.
(6) The applicant hoped to make a payment of some kind towards bride price and compensation and he hoped he could negotiate the figure down or at least be permitted to repay it in instalments.
(7) The applicant’s wife’s father was content to be paid in instalments but other (younger) members of his wife’s clan were not.
(8) He took work in [Country] hoping he would be able to return with enough money to make some kind of payment.
(9) He attended the mediation in 2009 and it failed for the reasons set out in his evidence and the evidence of his witnesses
(10)    The Tribunal accepts that in 2010 after another trip to [Country], he tried again to mediate the dispute but he was attacked in the market, as he set out in his evidence.
(11)    He had a kind of role on the recruitment company and made comments as set out in the newspaper report. However, the Tribunal finds that while his evidence about this was completely unsatisfactory, that he made comments in the press and held himself out or was held out as a recruitment agent, does not necessarily mean that he lacked a genuine fear of being attacked by members of his wife’s clan. Honiara overall may have been the safest place for him given the “Honiara-centric” nature of policing in the Solomon Islands. In any case, there is the evidence of what happened in 2009, the market attack in 2010, the evidence of his brother and a relatively recent visit by members of this wife’s clan demanding payment and information about the applicant.
(12)    The Tribunal accepts his evidence that he decided that he could not satisfy the demands of these hostile clan members and decided to leave Solomon Islands. The Tribunal accepts that he did this not only for his own safety but to prevent inter-clan payback violence.
(13)    He arrived here as a tourist and provided false information in a totally misguided attempt to conceal his reasons for being here; had he been truthful he could have avoided most of the problems he caused himself in the history of this application.
(14)    The Tribunal accepts that the harm that the applicant complains of – serious harassment, threats of violence, actual violence, and death – amounts to serious harm within the meaning of the Act.
(15)    Further, on the credible and reliable evidence in the application, the Tribunal accepts that were the applicant to return to the Solomon Islands, it is not far-fetched, speculative or too remote that there is a real chance that he would experience that harm. Even though the dispute goes back to 1999, the Tribunal accepts that disputes of this kind are protracted and even intractable and can last decades. There is also the evidence of the history of the violence, as late as 2010 and the written evidence of his brother.
193. It is relevant that it would be known that the applicant had spent years in Australia and the Tribunal finds that he would be (incorrectly) seen as wealthy and this would only increase the intent of the clan members to obtain payment from him.
194. The Tribunal also accepts that there is nowhere safe in the Solomon Islands for him. For the reasons set out above, wherever he went, he would be an obvious outsider and he would be identified and this information would make its way back to his wife’s clan members.

195. The Tribunal finds that, on the country information and the applicant’s evidence about his complaints to the police, he would not be able to avail himself of effective state protection.
Section 5J(1)(a) reasons
196. The difficulty with the applicant’s case under the refugee criterion is that the Tribunal is unable to find that there is a s 5J(1)(a) reason for the persecution. The only relevant reason could be membership of a particular social group. The Tribunal finds that the demand for payment is based on custom but is also a gross distortion of it. The Tribunal considers the country information about the current ‘compensation culture’ in the Solomon Islands, especially the conclusions of Fraenkel, to be compelling and that exorbitant sums are sought as a “try on” without any genuine foundation in custom or traditional at all.
197. There is no evidence that his wife’s clan objected to his marriage. In fact, the applicant said that he reached an agreement about the payment of bride price with his wife’s father, that he could have the bride price of the applicant’s daughters if any. Later, his wife’s father, an older person and more a part of the traditional culture system then the younger members of his clan, indicated more than once that he was willing to accept payment by instalments. Instalments would have been made to his wife’s father; however, a lump sum might have been treated very differently and benefitted the whole clan. The applicant’s witness said that the sum demanded was high but not altogether unreasonable.
198. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant, while he may have belonged to a different cultural group to that of his wife and her clan, was not persecuted because he married her without consent or disregard of marriage customs (of which there was no evidence) but as simple matter of criminal extortion. It was, to borrow Fraenkel’s phrase, a try-on by younger members of his wife’s clan to get a lump sum from the applicant, using customary notions of bride price and compensation as a pre-text.
199. That the applicant and the clan members of his wife belong to different social groups is not the reason for the persecution. Under s 5J(1)(a) and (4), if a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason for the persecution. The only relevant s 5J(1)(a) reason is membership of a particular social group. The applicant’s representative submits that the applicant is a member of four social groups persons who failed to comply with customary law/expectations (or perceived to have shown disrespect of customary law/expectations) in the Solomon Islands; individuals who have failed to settle their bride price and shell money compensation obligations for entering a marriage, or marriage-like relationship; persons who entered into an unsanctioned and/or adulterous relationship in violation of customary expectations; persons ‘’on the basis of inter-tribal and inter-clan tensions punctuated by perceived disrespect of the aggrieved clan. The Tribunal finds no difference between any of the categories. They are statements of the same principle, persons who failed to follow particular customs, in four differently worded ways.
200. Further, the Tribunal finds that there is no evidence of an intention on the part of the clan members that the reason that they are persecuting the applicant is that the applicant failed to comply with customary law expectations and or failed to settle bride price; in fact, the evidence of the agreement about bride price that he reached with his wife’s father points in the opposite direction. The country information is that customary values and traditions about bride price and compensation and respect for chiefs and custom has been distorted in the modern era and that exorbitant payments are sought outside of any basis in custom entirely.
201. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the essential reason for the persecution on the part of these clan members is essentially a kind of criminal one, a form of extortion which ultimately has nothing to do with custom and tradition. Fear of criminal conduct motivated by revenge or extortion does not come within the scope of the Convention unless it can be shown that the retaliation or extortion s linked with a racial, religious or other Convention reason. In Ram v MIEA the applicant claimed that he was being extorted on the basis that he was a member of a particular social group - namely villagers who had gone abroad and returned with money, or other wealthy Sikhs. The Full Federal Court rejected this contention. Justice Burchett stated: [30]
In the present case, quite apart from the difficulty of seeing wealthy Punjabis living in circumstances which make them vulnerable to extortion as a sufficient group, it is the greater difficulty of saying that the attacks feared by the appellant would be for reasons of his membership of that group which, it seems to me, he cannot overcome. Plainly, extortionists are not implementing a policy, they are simply extracting money from a suitable victim. Their forays are disinterestedly individual. … [The appellant] does not fear persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group, but extortion based on a perception of his personal wealth and aimed at him individually.

In Chenafa v MIMA the Federal Court observed that:[31]
There are a considerable number of authorities in this court to the effect that extortion of funds from victims is not necessarily evidence of persecution for a Convention reason, in view of the consideration that there may be many other grounds on which money is sought to be extracted in a criminal way from citizens of a country.
[30] Ram v MIEA (1995) 57 FCR 565 at 569.
[31] Rajaratnam v MIMA [2000] FCA 1111at [48]

202. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was not persecuted for a s 5J(1)(a) reason. Therefore, he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and he does not satisfy s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Complementary protection
203. The Tribunal finds that s 36(3) of the Act does not apply to this applicant.
204. However, the Tribunal finds that he is entitled to protection under the complementary protection criterion.
205. The Tribunal found under the refugee criterion that the harm in this case was serious harm under the Act; the Tribunal also finds that it amounts to significant harm, being torture, cruel/inhumane/degrading treatment or punishment and or arbitrary deprivation of life.
206. The Tribunal found that there is a real chance of the applicant experiencing the serious harm; as the real chance test under the refugee criterion is the same as the real risk test, the Tribunal finds that there is a real risk that the applicant could experience significant harm.
207. The Tribunal make the finding as regards relocation as it made under the refugee criterion.
208. The Tribunal also found that the applicant would not be avail himself of effective state protection and makes the same finding here. The Tribunal notes that effective state protection is understood differently under this criterion and that if there was any doubt about the issue under the refugee criterion, there are no such doubts as regards the application of the concept in this case.
CONCLUSION

Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
DECISION

210. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
DATES OF HEARINGS: 17 February 2025, 2 April 2025 and 5 June 2025

REPRESENTATIVE:
Mr Li Dennis Shen

[6] Solomon Islands Gender and Investment Climate Reform Assessment; International Finance Corporation, The World Bank, P91, 2010, Hedditch S & Manuel C, 2010,

accessed 26 May 2015