2014590 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Papua New Guinea, sought a protection visa on the basis that he engaged Australia's protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The applicant's claims centred on a land dispute and tribal violence in his home province, alleging he had been stabbed, a relative killed, and his father's death was related to these conflicts. He also later raised claims of fear of harm from individuals who had allegedly paid for his visa and group travel to Australia, suggesting a scam by an organiser. The delegate had previously affirmed the decision to refuse the visa, finding significant credibility concerns with the applicant's claims, including inconsistencies in chronology, social media postings inconsistent with living in hiding, and anonymous information suggesting the dispute had been settled.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a real chance of suffering significant harm or persecution if returned to Papua New Guinea, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding tribal violence, the alleged threats from individuals connected to the travel scam, and the impact of his mental health on his ability to recall and present his case. The court also had to consider the weight to be given to the applicant's psychological report, the anonymous information received by the Department, and the country information pertaining to Papua New Guinea.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not discharged his responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to establish his claims. While acknowledging the applicant's psychological distress and a provisional diagnosis of PTSD, the court found that the evidence did not support a real chance of persecution. Significant inconsistencies were noted in the applicant's account of the tribal conflict, including the timing of events and his activities during the period he claimed to be in hiding, as evidenced by social media postings. Furthermore, the court found the claims regarding threats from individuals connected to the travel scam lacked substantiation, and the anonymous information suggesting the dispute was settled cast doubt on the ongoing risk. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a real chance of suffering significant harm or persecution.