1907329 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Papua New Guinea, sought a protection visa in Australia. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically concerning claims of fear of harm due to political opinion and, alternatively, entitlement to complementary protection. The matter was before the Tribunal for review of a delegate's decision.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, as defined by section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, and if not, whether he was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims regarding election-related violence and subsequent threats from his former partner's family, as well as his ability to relocate within Papua New Guinea or access protection there.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims that he supported a candidate in the 2017 National Elections, leading to property destruction and a subsequent fear of harm. It also considered his claim that threats of harm and demands for compensation were made by his former partner's family following a physical altercation in Australia. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of ongoing threats or harm following the election period, nor any indication that the compensation demand from his former partner constituted a real risk of significant harm upon return to Papua New Guinea. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's extensive travel history between Papua New Guinea and Australia and the delay in his protection visa application. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason and that he could reasonably relocate within Papua New Guinea or access protection there, thus not meeting the criteria for complementary protection.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.