1803691 (Refugee)

The applicant, a man from the [Tribe 1] tribe in Enga Province, Papua New Guinea, sought a protection visa in Australia. He claimed to have fled his home region in 1984 due to a protracted land dispute with the more populous [Tribe 2] tribe, which resulted in violence and the seizure of his tribe's lands. The applicant further alleged that upon moving to Port Moresby and obtaining employment, he became the subject of rumours that he was supplying weapons to his own tribe. This led to him being allegedly monitored and subsequently attacked with machetes in 1992, sustaining severe injuries. The applicant arrived in Australia in December 2007 and remained unlawfully after his visa expired in January 2008, eventually applying for a protection visa in December 2017.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and if not, whether he was entitled to complementary protection. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims and determining if there was a real chance of him suffering significant harm upon return to Papua New Guinea, and whether effective protection measures were available to him in that country.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It found that the applicant's claims lacked sufficient detail and credibility, particularly given the significant delay in his application after his arrival in Australia. The Tribunal considered the provisions of the Migration Act 1958, including the definition of significant harm and the concept of effective protection measures. It concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution that would warrant the grant of a protection visa, nor had he established a claim for complementary protection. The Tribunal's reasoning implicitly addressed the availability of protection within Papua New Guinea and the applicant's ability to avoid harm, leading to the affirmation of the delegate's decision.