2314472 (Refugee)

This case involved an applicant seeking a protection visa, who claimed to be a member of a particular social group targeted by tribal violence in Papua New Guinea. The applicant's original claims focused on economic hardship, but these were later abandoned in favour of claims relating to tribal conflict. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons, and whether there was a real chance of persecution or significant harm upon return to Papua New Guinea.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, including statutory declarations and media reports, regarding tribal violence in the Enga Province. It acknowledged that the applicant's tribe had been involved in conflict and that his village had been destroyed. The Tribunal also accepted that the applicant and his family had fled their village and were living in hiding in another province. However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant's family had not experienced any violence or threats since relocating and had been living without incident for several months.

The Tribunal applied the principles of the Migration Act 1958, including the definition of a refugee and the criteria for complementary protection. It found that while the applicant was a member of a particular social group targeted by tribal violence, the tribal fighting in his home district was subject to a ceasefire agreement. Crucially, the Tribunal considered the relocation principle, finding that the applicant could reasonably relocate to another area within Papua New Guinea, such as the Morobe Province where his family resided, to avoid any real risk of persecution or significant harm.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It concluded that the applicant did not face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm in all areas of Papua New Guinea, nor did it find substantial grounds to believe there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for either refugee status or complementary protection.