1915304 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to fear persecution upon return to Papua New Guinea (PNG). The applicant asserted that during the 2017 PNG general elections, indiscriminate killings and violence occurred in his home town of [Town 1] in the Southern Highlands. He claimed that two family members were killed, his tribe lost property, and he himself had been named as a target for killing by an opposing tribe due to his support for the current Governor and his education. The applicant also stated that his parents had been forced to relocate and live in hiding after their home was destroyed, and that police were unable to control the ongoing violence. He further contended that due to a disability and the pervasive influence of his political and tribal opponents within the government, he could not relocate safely within PNG. The decision under review was made by a delegate of the Minister, who refused the protection visa.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Act, and if so, whether there was a real chance of such persecution occurring if he were returned to PNG. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to PNG, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims and the supporting documentation, including statutory declarations from family members and media reports. It noted that the applicant's parents and other tribespeople had relocated due to the violence. However, the Tribunal expressed reservations about the authenticity and reliability of purported letters from the PNG Constabulary, observing inconsistencies in their formatting and content. The delegate had accepted that the applicant could be construed as a supporter of the successful candidate and thus a potential target if he returned to [Town 1]. However, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant could not relocate safely within PNG, and therefore refused the visa on both refugee and complementary protection grounds. The Tribunal subsequently invited the applicant to attend a hearing to provide oral evidence, which he indicated he would do, intending to rely on previously submitted statutory declarations and photographic evidence.

The Tribunal ultimately found that the delegate's decision was not adequately reasoned, particularly concerning the assessment of the applicant's ability to relocate internally within PNG and the weight given to the purported police letters. The Tribunal determined that the delegate had failed to properly consider the evidence regarding the applicant's specific circumstances, including his disability and the alleged pervasive influence of his opponents. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the delegate for redetermination according to law.