2316946 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Papua New Guinea, sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa. The applicant initially claimed he came to Australia to work and send money home due to economic instability and lack of employment in Papua New Guinea. However, he later amended his claims to assert a fear of returning to Papua New Guinea due to endemic tribal violence in Enga province, which he claimed had resulted in the deaths of his brothers and personal injury to himself. He also stated that relocation to Port Moresby was unsafe due to the presence of enemy tribes and that his village had been destroyed, leaving him without means of support.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to assess if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or if there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Papua New Guinea.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of tribal violence, the Tribunal was not satisfied with the detail and authenticity of the supporting documents provided, leading to credibility concerns. Consequently, the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion, as there was no indication that he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for being a member of the same family unit as a person who holds a protection visa.