1707048 (Refugee)

The applicant, a man from Papua New Guinea, sought a protection visa in Australia, claiming a fear of violence from his extended family due to a customary land dispute. The Federal Circuit Court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa or was entitled to complementary protection.

The court was tasked with assessing the applicant's credibility and the veracity of his claims regarding the land dispute and the alleged threats. This involved considering the applicant's inconsistent evidence, the lack of detail in his application, and the fact that he had remained in Australia unlawfully since 2011, with fraudulent documents submitted with his initial visa application. The court also had to consider whether effective protection measures were available to the applicant in Papua New Guinea, specifically whether the authorities could provide protection against the feared harm.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principles outlined in the Migration Act 1958, particularly concerning the definition of a well-founded fear of persecution and the availability of effective protection. The court noted that under section 36(2B)(b) of the Act, a real risk of significant harm is not taken to exist if the applicant could obtain protection from an authority of the country that would reduce the risk to below a real level. The court found the applicant's evidence to be lacking in detail and inconsistent, and it was not satisfied that the applicant could not obtain protection from the authorities in Papua New Guinea.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The court found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.