1909741 (Refugee)

The applicant, a single mother and member of the Kii and Karl tribes in Papua New Guinea, sought a protection visa. She claimed to fear harm from the Ambusi tribe, as well as from inter-tribal conflicts and as a woman and single mother in Papua New Guinea. The delegate refused her application, finding she did not meet the definition of a refugee under section 5H(1) of the Act, and therefore Australia did not have protection obligations under section 36(2)(a). The matter came before the Tribunal for review.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Papua New Guinea, and if so, whether effective protection measures were available to her. This involved assessing the credibility of her claims of harm, including threats and violence from the Ambusi tribe following her son's involvement in a neighbour's murder investigation, and the broader context of inter-tribal conflict and the risks faced by single mothers in Papua New Guinea. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which applies if there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, there is a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence of ongoing tribal violence, murder, and revenge to be credible and not exaggerated, supported by expert opinion on inter-tribal conflicts in Papua New Guinea. It noted that such violence is endemic, particularly in the Highlands region and urban areas like Port Moresby, and can be triggered by various factors including land disputes and accusations of sorcery, often leading to destruction of property, injury, and death. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant would face violence upon return, not only from the Ambusi tribe but also due to the ongoing conflicts between the Kii and Karl tribes. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution and that effective protection measures were not available to her.

The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration, indicating that the applicant likely met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.