1912999 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision by the delegate of the Minister to refuse his application for a protection visa. The applicant's claims for protection stemmed from his father's death in Papua New Guinea due to an ongoing tribal dispute. His father, a leader within the Lankep tribe, was killed by a member of the Yakal sub-tribe after a dispute over the distribution of funds for a hospital construction. The applicant alleged that in retaliation, his sub-tribe killed members of the Yakal sub-tribe, leading to widespread violence and destruction of property, and that he and his brother feared for their lives, prompting his departure to Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the reasons specified in s 5J(1) of the Act, and if 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, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Papua New Guinea, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act. In making its determination, the Tribunal was mandated to consider Ministerial Direction No. 84, the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', the 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and relevant country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the provided evidence, including his statement, a photograph, and ABC news reports, as well as extensive country information regarding the security situation, inter-group violence, police capacity, and conditions for returnees in Papua New Guinea. The country information highlighted the prevalence of violent crime, the frequent outbreaks of tribal fighting, particularly in the Highlands region, and the limited capacity of the police to provide protection. It also noted that individuals targeted in tribal conflicts may continue to be targeted even if they relocate within Papua New Guinea, and that relocation often requires substantial NGO support and may not fully ameliorate the risk. The Tribunal also noted that there was no specific information available regarding the conditions faced by returnees who had not been granted protection. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.