2409570 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision to refuse the applicant, a citizen of Papua New Guinea, a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have fled Papua New Guinea due to fear of ongoing violence and harassment from her former husband, stemming from their separation in 2016 after years of physical, sexual, and verbal abuse. She alleged that her husband continued to harass her post-separation, demanding repayment of the bride price and custody of their children, and that police intervention had been ineffective. The applicant also expressed fear of further harm and an inability to relocate to avoid her husband, citing a lack of support networks and the pervasive nature of gender-based violence in Papua New Guinea.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership in a particular social group, and whether effective protection measures were available to her in Papua New Guinea. This involved assessing the credibility of her claims of past and future harm, considering the specific context of gender-based violence and the role of bride price in Papua New Guinean society, and evaluating the capacity and willingness of the state to provide protection. The court also needed to consider whether internal relocation within Papua New Guinea would be a reasonable and safe option for the applicant.

The court found the applicant's evidence to be credible, accepting her account of sustained violence from her husband, who continued to view her as his property due to an outstanding bride price. It noted that Papua New Guinea has endemic gender-based violence, with women often lacking effective state protection and facing cultural norms that perpetuate such violence. The court concluded that the applicant's fear of persecution was well-founded, as she was a member of the particular social group of women in Papua New Guinea, and her husband's motivation for harming her was intrinsically linked to this membership, compounded by the unresolved bride price and custody disputes. The court was satisfied that effective protection measures were not available and that internal relocation would not mitigate the real risk of harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), finding that Australia has protection obligations towards her as a refugee.