1721044 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa application of a male applicant from Chimbu Province, Papua New Guinea. The applicant claimed to fear persecution from enemy clans due to ongoing tribal conflict and a history of violence stemming from a 1992 election dispute. He alleged he had been shot in 2002 and beaten in 2012 by members of these clans, and that the tradition of "payback" meant this conflict would continue through generations. The applicant also contended that police protection in Papua New Guinea was unreliable due to corruption and that relocation within the country would be ineffective.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, and if not, whether he was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing the applicant's claims of persecution for reasons of membership in a particular social group, the plausibility of his past experiences, and the availability of effective protection in Papua New Guinea. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's personal history in light of extensive country information regarding tribal violence, the practice of "payback," and the limitations of state protection in Papua New Guinea.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's detailed account of his experiences, including specific instances of violence against himself and his family, was credible. It accepted that the applicant belonged to the particular social group of male members of families targeted for retributive tribal violence. Considering the country information, which indicated widespread tribal unrest, the increasing violence due to access to firearms, and the ineffectiveness of state protection, the Tribunal concluded that there was a real chance of persecution for the applicant throughout Papua New Guinea and that effective protection measures were not available. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution and was a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act*.

The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). As the applicant was found to meet the refugee criterion, the Tribunal did not need to consider his eligibility for complementary protection.