1727239 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an applicant who claimed to fear harm in Papua New Guinea due to tribal violence and political or electoral violence. The applicant alleged that his tribe, [Tribe 1], was in dispute with [Tribe 2], and that this conflict had escalated, resulting in deaths and displacement. He further claimed that false rumours had been spread that he was a sponsor of firearms and money for his tribe, leading to threats, monitoring, and an attempted killing, which instead resulted in his relative being shot. The decision under review was made by the Tribunal, presided over by Brendan Darcy.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had established a real risk of suffering significant harm in Papua New Guinea, and if so, whether Australia owed him protection obligations. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider if the risk faced by the applicant was general to the population, or if it was a personal risk arising from his specific circumstances, including allegations of his involvement in supplying firearms and money. The Tribunal was also required to consider the provisions of section 36(2B) of the Act, which outlines circumstances where a real risk of significant harm is not taken to exist, such as where relocation to a safer area is reasonable, or where protection can be obtained from the country's authorities.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicant had not established a real risk of significant harm. The reasoning applied was that the risks described, including tribal violence and the general dangers associated with electoral disputes, were faced by the population of Papua New Guinea generally and were not demonstrably personal to the applicant in a way that would engage Australia's protection obligations. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of being a target due to rumours of supplying firearms and money, but found that these claims did not elevate his risk beyond that faced by others in similar situations or the general population. The Tribunal also implicitly considered the possibility of internal relocation, as the applicant's family had moved to Port Moresby, and found that the risks were not sufficiently personalised to warrant protection.