1912057 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to fear persecution in Papua New Guinea due to inter-tribal conflict. The applicant alleged that a land dispute between the Dena and Mananga clans in 2008 led to widespread violence, including killings and destruction of property, and that he was targeted due to his clan's involvement and a subsequent act of retaliation. The applicant sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse the visa.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under the Act, and if so, whether there was a real chance of such persecution upon return to Papua New Guinea. Alternatively, the court had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Papua New Guinea.

The court considered the applicant's claims, including evidence such as photographs and a newspaper article detailing tribal clashes between the Dena and Mananga tribes. However, the court noted inconsistencies and vagueness in the applicant's evidence, particularly regarding his direct involvement in the conflict and the specific targeting of his clan. The delegate had found a lack of credibility in the applicant's account, noting that his stated clan was not identified as being involved in the conflict described. The court also had regard to country information from DFAT, which confirmed the prevalence of inter-tribal violence in Papua New Guinea, often triggered by land disputes and other factors, and that such conflicts could affect displaced populations and lead to ongoing targeting. Despite the general country information, the court found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm due to a lack of credible evidence directly linking him to the specific conflict and the reasons for his alleged targeting.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for protection under the Act.