2025ARTA1808
Uploaded by
Thrillseeker2025ARTA1808
Uploaded by
Thrillseeker2204797 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1808 (29 JULY 2025)
Decision and
Reasons for Decision
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2204797
Tribunal: General Member G Hamilton
Date: 29 July 2025
Place: Melbourne
Decision: The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Statement made on 29 July 2025 at 2:51pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Papua New Guinea – particular social groups – separated
woman and mother – fear of harm from former partner and his first wife, and lack of
employment, housing and other services – former partner deceased when application made,
and no recent contact with first wife – fear of harm from acquaintances who lent money to
person applicant introduced to them – spouse/parent of non-citizen – Australian Indigenous
husband and child – delay in applying for protection – two previous visas and returns, and
overstay of most recent visa – inconsistent information in visitor and protection applications –
applications prepared by other people – no mental health diagnosis or treatment – country
information – high rate of gender-based violence – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65(1), 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
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.
_________________________________________________________________________________
In accordance with s 369 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Tribunal will not publish any
statement which may identify the applicant or any relative or dependant of the applicant.
Statement of reasons
BACKGROUND
1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home
Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958
(Cth) (the Act).
2. The applicant applied for the visa on 20 November 2017. The delegate refused to grant the
visa on 21 March 2022.
3. The applicant attended a hearing of the Tribunal. The hearing was conducted with the
assistance of an interpreter in the Pidgin (PNG) and English languages.
4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
5. Under section 65(1) of the Act a visa may be granted only if the decision maker is satisfied
that the criteria for the visa prescribed in the Act are met.
6. The criteria for a protection visa are relevantly set out in s 36 of the Act. An applicant must
meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2). Generally speaking, they must either be a
person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion
(s 36(2)(a)), or on ‘complementary protection’ grounds (s 36(2)(aa)), or be a member of
the same family unit as such a person.
7. Under s 36(3) Australia does not have protection obligations to an applicant who has not
taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in a third country.
8. Refugee
9. Refugee is defined in the Act. A person is a refugee if they are outside the country of their
nationality (of if they have no nationality, their country of former habitual residence) and,
owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of
the protection of that country: s 5H(1).
10. Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted
for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political
opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons,
and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country.
11. One or more of the above-listed reasons must be the essential and significant reason or
reasons for the persecution: s 5J(4)(a). Further, the persecution must involve systematic
and discriminatory conduct: ss 5J(4)(b), (c).
12. The criterion in s 5J(1) contains a subjective requirement, that an applicant must in fact hold
a fear of being persecuted, but also imposes an objective standard, that there be a real
chance the person would be persecuted. A 'real chance' is one that is not remote or
insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility: Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379.
13. The persecution must involve serious harm such as a threat to the person’s life or liberty or
significant physical harassment or ill treatment, significant economic hardship that threatens
their capacity to subsist, or denial of access to basic services or capacity to earn a livelihood
of any kind, where the denial threatens their capacity to subsist (ss 5J(4) and (5)).
Tribunal Number 2204797 Page 1 of 12
14. A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures
are available to them in the receiving country (ss 5J(2) and 5LA). A person does not have
a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify
their behaviour to avoid persecution (s 5J(3), which also gives examples of types of
modifications that are not required, such as concealing one’s religion, political opinion,
race or sexual orientation).
15. In determining whether the person has a well-founded fear of persecution, any conduct
engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless they satisfy the Minister
that they engaged in the conduct for a reason other than to strengthen their claim to be a
refugee (s 5J(6)).
16. Complementary Protection
17. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion, they may still be a person to whom
Australia has protection obligations if there are substantial grounds to believe that, as a
necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving
country, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm. S 36(2A) defines significant
harm as arbitrary deprivation of life, carrying out of the death penalty, torture, or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. “Real risk” has the same meaning as “real
chance”: MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33.
18. Arbitrary deprivation of life and the death penalty carry their ordinary meanings. Torture and
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment both involve intentionally causing severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental. Degrading treatment or punishment is defined as
intentionally causing extreme humiliation.
19. Under s 36(2B) Australia does not have complementary protection obligations 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 they will suffer significant harm;
the applicant could obtain protection from an authority of the country, such that there
would not be a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
the risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and not by the
applicant personally.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
20. 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.
21. The applicant was born in [Town] in [Year]. In an application to visit Australia lodged in
October 2011 she said she lives in [Village], [Location], [Town]. She travels on a PNG
passport. She would visit Australia to attend the graduation of her friend’s niece in Brisbane.
The friend is [Ms A]. The applicant was working as [an Occupation 1]. [Ms A]’s sister [Ms B]
would be travelling with her and was her financial sponsor for the visit. They would be
staying with [Ms A] in Brisbane. In her details of relatives form, the applicant said her
parents and her three siblings live in PNG. She declared no spouse or children. Her
Tribunal Number 2204797 Page 2 of 12
application was supported by a letter from her [employer]. It was submitted with a covering
letter on her own personal letterhead.
22. In 2016 the applicant applied to visit Australia again. She said she was living in Port
Moresby ([Steet]) and again declared no partner or children. She was coming to visit a
friend living in Brisbane, [Mr C], and for sight-seeing. She was working as [an occupation 2].
[Mr C] wrote a letter of support saying he met the applicant in 2011 and they were good
friends.
23. In lodging her protection application in November 2017, the applicant said she arrived in May
2016. She also said she had three children, all carry her surname, born in [Year], [Year] and
[Year] (i.e. before she came to Australia the first time). Her marital status was separated,
she does not state when the relationship began or when the separation occurred. She
acknowledged she had overstayed her visa. She said she only had grade five education
and that her mother and children are in [Town] and she is in occasional contact with them.
24. The applicant said she left PNG because she feared serious harm from or being killed by her
previous husband, his family and friends, and his other wives, because she is a woman in
PNG who separated from her husband because of family violence. She experienced serious
harm from her husband and his other wives. She tried to get help from the authorities, but
they did not help her. The PNG authorities do not help women who are victims of family
violence. She moved to Port Moresby but she was not safe there. She is not safe anywhere
in PNG because the authorities do not protect women who are victims of family violence.
25. In her address history she said she lived in [Town] until approximately March 2013 and then
at “various addresses”, [Location], Port Moresby. She said she never worked in PNG. Her
family survived by selling things from the garden at the market.
26. In a statutory declaration made in October 2018 the applicant said she married [Mr D] in
2003 and was his second wife. He died in 2014 of a stroke. [Ms E] (the first wife) and [Ms
E]’s children were very unhappy about the marriage. The applicant was unaware of the first
marriage until 2010 when [Ms E] tracked her down. She was attacked with a stone in 2010
encouraged by [Ms E]’s entourage including [Ms E]’s daughter. They called her a prostitute.
[Ms E]’s daughter took her bag and phone. [Ms E] bit her. She had to go to hospital but did
not need stiches. In April 2011 [Ms E] attacked her again with the axe to the [body part].
Witnesses didn’t help her; she went to the hospital and got 11 stitches in her [body part].
She went to the police but they said they could not help her and sent her to the [Park] for
mediation. [Ms E] was angry but paid the compensation ordered by the mediator. There
was no order for [Ms E] to stay away from and not attack the applicant again.
27. The applicant also made claims about her husband being violent towards her. She did not
go to the police as it is accepted in PNG that women obey their husbands even if they are
abused. In 2013 she went to stay with relatives in [Location] who were also very poor, and
lived with them in return for household duties. When her husband died, she did not go to his
funeral or visit his grave, and his son said she was disrespectful and should be punished.
28. The applicant also claimed that in April 2016 she was assaulted by a person called [Ms F]
who with her husband [Mr G] had loaned money to a friend of the applicant ([Mr H]),
introduced to them by the applicant in 2014. The loan was not repaid and [Ms F] blamed
her. The applicant claimed she was made to go with [Ms F] to the police and the police told
her she had to pay the loan. [Ms F] persuaded the police to keep the applicant overnight,
and [Ms F]’s husband came and threatened her. She was released on the intervention of
two Federal Police from Australia the next day. [Ms F] and [Mr G] took her to their home and
told her she had to repay the loan, and made her stay overnight. The next day their relative
took her to sell her camera and she paid over 800 kina to [Ms F] and [Mr G] outside the
Tribunal Number 2204797 Page 3 of 12
police station. It wasn’t the full amount though, and [Mr G] threatened her again in front of
the police, and the police told her she had to pay the rest. In 2017 when she was working on
a [workplace] a man from PNG said he had heard [Ms F] and [Mr G] were looking for her
claiming she had stolen from them and were going to kill her.
29. The applicant said when she first came to Australia she came to Brisbane and stayed for 8
weeks at a Backpackers. She returned to PNG because she was concerned about her
children. When she went back the violence from her husband continued. She ran away
several times and stayed with her mother. She came back to Australia in 2016 still in fear of
her husband’s family and [Ms F] and [Mr G]. She said she had asked the police for help
many times during her marriage, but they did not protect her, and did not protect her from
[Ms F] and [Mr G].
30. [Asylum Seeker and Refugee service provider] wrote a letter dated November 2018, saying
they had seen the applicant since November 2017, noted depression since March 2018, did
not feel she needed a psychologist, and she was not on any medication, but was likely to get
worse in PNG and not have the needed support for her mental health. She also had an
umbilical hernia due to appendectomy, and cervical dysplasia.
31. [Hospital] letter dated 6 August 2021 states that the applicant presented to the emergency
department in 2011 with multiple lacerations after a woman attacked her with an axe in front
of [a] supermarket. The wound was cleaned and stitched and the stiches were removed a
week later. A diagnosis of multiple lacerations secondary to physical assault was made at
that time. There is a receipt for the medical report dated the same day (6 August 2021).
Also in August 2021, [Mr I] of [Location] Settlement wrote a statutory declaration about the
assault. He said he and other mediators ordered [Ms E] to pay K500 compensation to the
applicant at the [park] [in Town]. [Town] Police station also wrote a letter dated 6 August
2021 about the attack, the hospitalisation, peace mediation and compensation. The matter
was “now closed and put further to rest”.
32. Prior to the hearing the applicant submitted a further statutory declaration dated May 2025.
She said she is now married to an Australian man ([Mr J]) and they have a child ([Miss K])
born in 2021. She said she continues to fear harm at the hands of [Ms E], [Ms F] and her
husband [Mr G], and the community in [Town] and PNG broadly. Many other things have
happened to her but she has not been able to recall every single experience of harm. She
said that [Ms E] and her family are still in [Town] and [Ms F] and [Mr G] are in Port Moresby.
She has not had any contact with any of these parties since arriving in Australia in May
2016. But she has no doubt that they will pursue and harm her if she returns to PNG. [Ms
E] and her family will harm her because she had shamed her husband by not attending his
funeral.
33. With regard to [Ms F] and [Mr G], in 2014 she had introduced [Mr H] to them as her
boyfriend, and they were close friends. Then he stopped contacting her. Around March
2016 they told her about his 5000 kina debt and they believed her to be responsible for it
because of her relationship with him. In April they demanded the payment and she said she
was not responsible and did not have the money. They shouted threats at her and spat on
her face, and a mob of people gathered around and joined in the abuse. She was
humiliated and no one would save her life. The mob took her to the police station and she
was locked in a cell overnight and a statement taken from her. She was told to pay the
money. [Mr G] came to her cell and threatened to kill her. The police released her the next
day, she was kidnapped by [Ms F] and [Mr G], the next day they sent to her to find money
and she sold her camera and gave them 800 kina and said she needed more time to pay the
rest. Then she left PNG.
Tribunal Number 2204797 Page 4 of 12
34. Since the applicant left [Town] for [Location], [Ms E] and her family have made several
attempts to find out her contact information and [Ms E] has told relatives and community
members she would cause her serious harm and even kill her if she returns. [Ms F] and [Mr
G] have also made several attempts to find out her contact information. They will not stop
pursuing her unless the debt is paid or she is killed.
35. The applicant said that as a woman she would have extreme difficulty obtaining employment
or housing and believed that she would be homeless. She will face discrimination because
of her marital status in accessing employment, housing and other services and would be
destitute. Her family in [Town] will not be able to help her and her return would put them at
risk of harm from [Ms E] and her family, [Ms F] and [Mr G] and the broader PNG community.
She will be forced to separate permanently from her new husband and child and that would
cause her significant emotional distress.
36. As a woman without family and clan protection she will be vulnerable to abuse, harassment,
violence and sexual assault from the community. If her new husband and child go with her,
they will be at risk of serious harm and her daughter will be at risk of forced marriage, name
calling, humiliation and physical assault and sexual assault as a female non-citizen.
37. The applicant said that as a victim of mob and severe family violence she has experience
significant trauma and returning to PNG would trigger impacts on her mental health and her
ability to gain employment and support her family.
38. The applicant’s representative made a written submission including the following points:
The applicant was at risk of serious harm including threats to life or liberty, death and
significant physical harassment and ill-treatment, serious discrimination causing
economic hardship and denial of capacity to earn a living, threatening her capacity to
subsist.
She is a member of particular social groups women in PNG, mothers in PNG, women
who have experienced domestic violence in PNG and people with mental health
conditions.
She also warranted complementary protection.
She has consistently stated her claims; they are coherent and plausible and
consistent with country information.
She has been harmed by [Ms E] and her family, [Mr G] and [Ms F], and was
threatened because of being absent from her former husband’s funeral.
Violence against women is endemic in PNG and they are routinely denied protection.
She is at risk of serious discrimination because of her reputation and mental health.
DFAT reports that almost all women and girls will be subject to violence at some point
in their lives and that the police response remains inadequate. Gender based
discrimination remains pervasive in the workforce and women face severe
inequalities in all aspects of life. Sexual violence was also common, limiting women’s
ability to participate in all aspects of life.
Tribal violence is also common with hundreds of people killed and tens of thousands
displaced since 2022, with women being targeted for sexual violence.
Tribunal Number 2204797 Page 5 of 12
Failure of state protection was discriminatory.
The risks to the applicant were cumulative.
Relocation would not protect her from harm and would not be reasonable or practical
including because of her personal circumstances including being a woman, mother,
lacking male or clan protection and a family network outside [Town], and being
married to an Indigenous Australian man and having an Indigenous Australian child.
39. The hearing
40. At the hearing the applicant confirmed she was born in [Town] local government area,
[Location], [Village]. The nearest police station is in [Town]. Her mother is from [Location 2]
(also [Location], [Village]). Her father lives at [Location 3], on the other side of [Town]. He
has another wife. He and her mother separated 20 years ago.
41. The applicant went to [school] until grade 5. She said she left school because of family
problems, they only had their mother to provide for them so no one finished school. They
lived on the land and sold things they grew on it. They didn’t own the land; the owner
allowed them to farm it.
42. She and [Mr D] lived together. He had a lot of women on the side but [Ms E] was his first
wife and they had [children]. [Ms E] still lives just outside [Town] in the same place she lived
when she was with [Mr D]. The applicant and [Mr D] lived further out. [Ms E] did not know
that [Mr D] had put the applicant in his new house. That house is now being used by his
children. The applicant’s children live with her mother. The applicant is in contact with her
parents and children.
43. The applicant said she experienced plenty of harm from [Mr D], even before he left [Ms E].
The applicant would ask him to stop going with other women and he would throw knives and
once cut her nose with a bottle. She reported him to the police multiple times but they would
tell her go home and sort it out with her family. The Tribunal observed that the applicant had
given different information about whether she reported [Mr D] to the police. The applicant
said she reported him once but they did not help, so the second and third time she did not
go to the police.
44. In 2010 [Ms E] caught the applicant at a second hand shop and she and her friends hit the
applicant with a stone; she was dizzy and bleeding from her head. [Mr D] found out about it
but he did not do anything. She didn’t go to the police because they would have just told her
to go away. She took some tablets and her mother looked after her.
45. In 2011 she was hit with an axe to the [body part] and needed 11 stitches, and was dragged
and pulled. She went to hospital and then to the police, they sent her home to sort it out with
the village elders, who ordered [Ms E] to compensate her. But they could not prevent her
from attacking again. The applicant ran away. She was in Australia for 6-8 weeks. The
Tribunal observed that it appeared from her movement record that she was only here for
about 3 weeks. The applicant thought she arrived in November. Then for the sake of her
children she returned to her village. On return there was more violence from [Mr D]; he was
dragging and pulling her and getting other people to hold her down in public. If a husband is
chasing their wife, that is what happens. She had no more issues with [Ms E]. She went to
Moresby, staying with relatives and working for them, and then came to Australia in 2016.
She did not go home at all. In 2014 [Mr D] died.
46. The Tribunal observed that with [Mr D]’s death the applicant need have no fear of being
harmed by him or, likely, [Ms E]. The applicant said she and [Mr D] were still seen as
Tribunal Number 2204797 Page 6 of 12
married even though she had left him. It was customary for a wife to go to her husband’s
funeral, so [Ms E] and her children are angry with the applicant, and [Ms E] is still upset that
the applicant took [Mr D] away from her. The Tribunal observed that if [Ms E] is angry about
the relationship it was not logical that she would also be angry that the applicant was not at
the funeral. The applicant said it was the community that sees her as a disrespectful wife.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that her claim initially had been it was [Ms E] and her family
that she feared, not the community. The applicant said that [Ms E] would get the community
involved. Collective payback was the mentality in PNG.
47. The Tribunal asked the applicant why [Ms F] and [Mr G] would blame her for the money that
they loaned and could not recover. The applicant said she introduced them to [Mr H] and
then he went into hiding. He wanted money for a car. They found her at the market and
beat her up. The Tribunal observed that the applicant had recently claimed to have
introduced [Mr H] as her boyfriend. The applicant said they were just friends. People
thought they were in a relationship, but they weren’t. He was a male friend.
48. The Tribunal questioned why the police would become involved in this matter of an unpaid
loan. The applicant said the police told her she had to keep paying it off. She handed over
cash in front of the police in order to have them witness the transaction. [Mr G] went to hit
her, but the police did not do anything. Maybe he had friends in the police force. They were
very one-sided.
49. The Tribunal asked the applicant why all the documents related to [Ms E] were dated 2021.
The applicant said she came here without any evidence so she asked her father to get it.
The Tribunal observed that the documents did not appear to be connected with any records
made at the time of the dispute with [Ms E], and that it may find that they are contrived. The
applicant said her father witnessed what happened, and told the police and the mediator
about it, and they wrote it down as he told it, because they had lost their own records. They
did not have computers, everything was handwritten. The applicant said the same process
happened with the hospital record. Her father told the doctor what happened, and they
wrote it down and put it onto letterhead, because they could not find any original records.
But he did tell them the truth.
50. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she did not apply for a protection visa sooner, as this
was relevant to assessing whether she really faced harm. The applicant said she did not
know how to apply or where to get help, and was living on a farm. If she had known, she
would have applied sooner. The Tribunal observed that the applicant had overstayed her
visa and feared serious harm it might be expected that in these circumstances she would
consider her situation and seek out advice. The applicant said she went straight to the farm
and was working long hours with people from everywhere.
51. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that the applicant was seeing a psychologist
or on any medication. The applicant said she would not want to go back to the place where
she has been stoned and hit with an axe and pulled and dragged.
52. The Tribunal noted that in her protection application the applicant had said she was afraid of
her husband but he was already long deceased when she applied. The applicant said she
was thinking more of [Ms E] and her children.
53. The Tribunal put to the applicant that in 2011 when she applied to visit Australia, she
declared no spouse or children. The applicant said her friend [Ms A] helped her with the
application. The Tribunal put to the applicant that part of the material in support of the
application was a covering letter on the applicant’s own letterhead. The applicant said her
friend filled in the form.
Tribunal Number 2204797 Page 7 of 12
54. The Tribunal observed that the applicant had submitted a letter with her first visitor
application from [her employer] stating that she was employed. The applicant said she was
a volunteer, but they gave her a one-off payment after a few months to help her travel to
Australia. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the reference said she had been employed
for three years, and that the Tribunal found it implausible that she was not paid.
55. The Tribunal put to the applicant that her second application said she was living in [Street]
and [doing a job task]. The applicant said she was not sure how this information was in her
visitor application, as it was not true.
56. The Tribunal said that it may not see the harm to the applicant from having to separate from
or relocate her new family to PNG as engaging protection obligations. The applicant said
she has a new life here and she does not want them to be harmed. She has a community
and family friends.
57. Post-hearing
58. After the hearing the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting her to comment on adverse
information in accordance with s 359A of the Migration Act. The letter read in part as follows:
The particulars of the information are:
In your first visitor visa application you declared no spouse or children. You provided a
reference stating that you were employed as a secretary in the office of the [Public
position] in [Town]. You sent the visa application and accompanying documents to the
visa processing centre under your own letterhead.
In your second visitor visa application you said you were living in [Street, Suburb] (which
is in Port Moresby). You were working in the informal sector, [doing a job task]. You
declared no children.
This information is relevant to the review because it contradicts your recent claims and evidence
and therefore reflects on your general credibility. In your protection application you said you had
never worked. You said that in your time in Port Moresby was spent working for and living with
various poor relatives in the [Location] Settlement. You have informed the Tribunal that you had a
spouse and that you have three children, all born before you applied to visit Australia.
If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may find that you do not have a well-
founded fear of persecution or require complementary protection, which would be a reason for
affirming the Delegate’s decision.
59. The applicant replied that other people had filled in her visitor visa applications and they
were not read back to her. She had limited understanding of the process. She was in fact
married with three children when she first visited. [Mr D] died in 2014. She never lived in
[Street, Suburb] or worked in [doing a job task] – she thought this information may have
been transposed from another person’s application. She conceded that she failed to
disclose in her protection application that she was employed by the office of the [Public
position] in [Town], claiming that community members from PNG in Australia advised her
against disclosing this information and she felt pressured.
60. The applicant submitted a letter from a doctor in [City] stating that the applicant has
extensive physical evidence of severe and repeated violence perpetrated against her
including scarring on her [body parts] consistent with her stated history of multiple violence
assaults with axes, broken glass, wire and bites. The doctor believed that the applicant
would be at risk of very significant harm or death if she were to return to her old
environment.
Tribunal Number 2204797 Page 8 of 12
61. The applicant also submitted a written statement made by her father, that in 2010 the
applicant was stoned and bit on the hand by [Ms E], there were a lot of witnesses, she was
taken to the hospital because she had a blow to the head and a small cut. In 2011 [Ms E]
chased the applicant and hit her with an axe. They went to the police but were unable to file
a report because the police said it was a family matter. She was taken to hospital. It was a
very public attack so there was an urgent mediation with the Village Counsellor. Village
court decisions are not put down in writing and the hospital and police station do not have
facilities to archive documents. [Mr I] went with the applicant’s father to the hospital and
police station to recount what had happened in 2011, which is how he obtained the 2021
documents.
62. The applicant’s representative made a further written submission addressing principles
concerning the assessment of credibility, and reiterating that her risks needed to be
considered cumulatively according to her profile (women and mothers in PNG, women who
have experienced severe domestic violence in PNG, parent/spouse/family of a non-citizen).
It would be a significant hardship for [Miss K] and [Mr J] to go to PNG given their ties to
country and the implications of forced removal for those of indigenous heritage. They might
consider not going with her and the applicant would be without protection. They cannot
afford to visit her and due to [Mr J]’s depression the marriage would likely collapse; being
separated from [Mr J] and [Miss K] would cause the applicant’s mental health to suffer. The
representative included further country information about corruption, under-resourcing of the
police and police abuse in PNG.
63. Country information
64. DFAT’s Country Information Report Papua New Guinea 25 July 2025 includes the following
information:
65. FSV (family and sexual violence) against women and girls is common in PNG.
Violence is often perpetrated by male guardians/protectors of women and girls, as well as
other male family members. … DFAT assesses women in PNG face a low to moderate risk of
official discrimination in the form of inadequate state protection, reflective of resource
constraints and individual prejudices of police rather than official policy. DFAT assesses
women face moderate risk of societal discrimination due to traditional values, cultural
traditions and stereotyped gender roles, which restrict their ability to participate fully in
community decision making and politics. DFAT assesses women face a moderate to high risk
of violence, particularly from male guardians/protectors and other male family members, on
the basis of their gender.
66. …
67. The effectiveness of the RPNGC is limited by resource and staffing constraints, as
well as low morale and high rates of absenteeism. Police officers are routinely restricted from
investigating crimes due to shortages of vehicles and fuel. When crimes take place in remote
rural areas, it is often difficult for police to investigate, make arrests and collect evidence due
to challenging geographic factors and weather conditions. In addition, police officers are only
deployed where accommodation is available (primarily barracks in smaller provincial capitals),
not always where high rates of crime are taking place. As a result of inadequate resource
allocation and staffing, in country sources said there were sometimes significant delays in
responding to requests for assistance, with police often deprioritising investigation of cases
not deemed 'high priority'.
68. …
69. Papua New Guineans regularly migrate to big cities like Port Moresby, Lae, and
Mount Hagen in search of better economic and educational opportunities but also following
divorce or to avoid tribal violence and natural disasters. Estimates suggest up to half of Port
Tribunal Number 2204797 Page 9 of 12
Moresby's population consists of internal migrants living in informal settlements. Social and
economic barriers to relocation can impact vulnerable groups disproportionately, including
single and divorced women, especially those leaving FSV situations.
70. DFAT assesses migrating to large urban areas may mitigate risks posed by inter-tribal
conflict, GBV (gender based violence) and SARV(sorcery accusation related violence).
However, vulnerable groups such as single and divorced women leaving family violence
situations may face additional barriers to relocation including access to employment and
housing.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
71. Based on the information in her application, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s country of
nationality is PNG.
72. The applicant claimed to fear harm as a member of particular social groups: a woman in
PNG who separated from her husband because of family violence, women and mothers in
PNG, women who have experienced domestic violence or severe domestic violence in PNG,
parent/spouse/family of a non-citizen, and people with mental health conditions. She also
claimed to fear discrimination based on her marital status, reputation and mental health in
accessing employment, housing and other services resulting in an incapacity to subsist.
73. In broad terms the applicant’s claims can be assessed as fear of gender-based harm and
the tribunal accepts that women in general are a particular social group in PNG. It is
therefore not necessary to decide whether all of the posited particular social groups exist.
74. The representative also raised that gender-based harm can be exacerbated in situations of
tribal violence, i.e. that it encompasses harm based on race. The applicant did not claim to
have ever been a victim of inter-tribal violence or that anything about her particular situation
makes her vulnerable to such violence in the future. No evidence was put forward that
people married to, or a parent or family member of, Australians including Indigenous
Australians are at risk of race-based harm in PNG.
75. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant suffers from mental illness. Although there is
a report noting depression in 2018, she is not seeing a psychologist or taking any
medication, and only saw a psychologist when she lodged her protection visa application.
She is not a member of a particular social group of people with mental health conditions.
That is not to say that returning to PNG would not cause her emotional and mental distress,
but she will not be harmed by the community for that reason. Nor does the Tribunal accept
that she will be harmed because of having an umbilical hernia or cervical dysplasia.
76. The country information indicates that there is a high rate of gender-based violence in PNG
especially family violence. However, that does not mean that all women in PNG face a real
chance of persecution. It depends on their circumstances. It is thus necessary to evaluate
the applicant’s particular claims, and that includes an assessment of her credibility.
77. The applicant’s credibility is tarnished materially to her claims. Firstly, she overstayed her
visa and did not apply for protection until she had been here for about 18 months. Her
explanation for not doing so (that she was working on a [workplace] and did not know what
to do) was not compelling considering her visa had long expired. If she feared harm in PNG
it would be normal to take steps to regularise her status. This circumstance casts doubt on
both her fear of harm and also the reality of the risk of harm she claims to fear.
78. Secondly, when she did lodge her application, she said she feared harm from her ex-
husband, his family and friends, and his other wives. However, her husband was already
dead. In this sense her application was deceptive.
Tribunal Number 2204797 Page 10 of 12
79. Thirdly, the applicant did not tell the truth about her employment situation in PNG in her
protection application, and did not tell the truth about her family composition in her visitor
applications. Her explanations for omitting her spouse and children from her first application,
and her children from her second application, was the involvement of other people in filling
these up. This is not persuasive, as her first application included a cover letter under her
own personal letterhead, which means she is actually capable of attending to such
administrative tasks herself. For some reason she has not told the Department of her family
at the visitor stage. Regarding her employment in [Town], the applicant did not provide a
persuasive explanation for omitting the information about the job at the [Workplace] from her
protection application. She did not say why she was advised to omit it or why she felt
pressured to do so. These factors are not directly material to her claims, but they are still
relevant to an assessment of her commitment to tell the truth.
80. Turning to the specific claims of gender-based violence, the Tribunal accepts that the
applicant was harmed by [Mr D]. It is difficult to assess the extent of the harm. The
applicant’s doctor has included that she has been injured with broken glass and wire but that
does not appear in her own claims and evidence. In any event, [Mr D] is now deceased and
can no longer harm the applicant.
81. Based on the detailed and consistent accounts, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was
attacked twice by [Ms E] and her cohorts for being a second wife. However, in her initial
statutory declaration it is not indicated that the applicant had issues with [Ms E] after the
settlement in 2011. The applicant later moved to Moresby. It was not evidently logical that
[Ms E] and her family would reactivate their antipathy to the applicant simply because she
did not go to [Mr D]’s funeral. The applicant claims to have been threatened for this, and
that [Ms E] has been looking for her contact information. She provided no evidence of this,
and considering the credibility assessment above, the Tribunal does not accept it. There is
no evidence that the community in PNG has any interest in her marital status now or that
any stigma follows her. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is at risk of any harm
at all from [Ms E] or [Ms E]’s relatives, or the broader community, in connection with her
previous marriage.
82. The applicant said that because she is a woman (and because of her marital status and
reputation) she will be deprived of employment, housing and other services. The Tribunal
does not accept this. The applicant has been employed in the formal and informal sectors
before, during and after her first marriage and has been able to subsist, and has not been
deprived of housing, health or education in a discriminatory way.
83. The applicant said she feared her new daughter being harmed because of being a girl-child.
Of course, this would also cause indirect harm to the applicant. But the chance of this
occurring is no more than speculative at this stage.
84. Even considering the above claims cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the
applicant faces a real chance of serious harm from anyone in particular or from the PNG
community in general, due to being a woman.
85. The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm
for any of the reasons specified in s 5J(1). The applicant therefore does not have a well-
founded fear of persecution as required by s.5J(1). The Tribunal finds that the applicant is
not a refugee as defined in s.5H(1).
86. The Tribunal is similarly not satisfied there are substantial grounds to believe that on return
to PNG there is real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A),
warranting complementary protection, in relation to the claims discussed above.
Tribunal Number 2204797 Page 11 of 12
87. Further on complementary protection, the applicant claimed to be in a financial dispute with
persons called [Ms F] and [Mr G]. These claims were not detailed until October 2018, which
indicates that they were not on the applicant’s mind when she lodged her protection
application. The Tribunal does not accept that [Ms F] and [Mr G] blamed the applicant for a
debt owed by someone else ([Mr H]). It does not accept that [Mr H] was perceived as her
boyfriend, this element was added late in the review process. It therefore does not accept
the inference that this was why she was held responsible in others’ eyes for the debt.
88. As the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was blamed, it therefore does not accept
that the police became involved, and this was in itself implausible since an unpaid debt was
a private matter not a police matter. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was
abducted, imprisoned or beaten in relation to this debt or that anyone is going to harm her in
the future, in relation to it. It does not accept that she has been told in Australia that [Ms F]
and [Mr G] intend to kill her.
89. It was put to the Tribunal that the applicant’s marriage may fail if she returns to PNG. This is
speculative, and in any case the resulting emotional harm does not meet the definition of
significant harm for the purposes of complementary protection, as it is not something that will
be inflicted on the applicant by the community or authorities.
90. In conclusion, the Tribunal is not satisfied there are substantial grounds to believe that on
return to PNG there is real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as defined in s
36(2A), warranting complementary protection.
91. CONCLUSION
92. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in
respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa).
93. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of
the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection
visa.
94. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
95. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
96.
