2025ARTA1839
Uploaded by
Thrillseeker2025ARTA1839
Uploaded by
Thrillseeker2433151 (refugee) [2025] ARTA 1839 (3 September 2025)
Decision and
Reasons for Decision
1.
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2433151
Tribunal: General Member S Vohra
Date: 3 September 2025
Place: Melbourne
Decision: The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review
and remits the application for a protection visa for
reconsideration, in accordance with the order that
the applicant meets the following criteria:
36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
2.
Statement made on 03 September 2025 at 1:08pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Papua New Guinea – particular social group – young, single
men from tribes in Enga Province – fears harm from enemy tribe – family member killed and
home burnt down – lived in a state of insecurity – delay in applying for protection – delayed
because held valid visa – ongoing violence – increased use of firearms and paid hired
fighters – no formal welfare system – police limitations – trauma – domestic violence by ex-
partner in Australia – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
(Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J–5LA, 36, 65, 369, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
ABAR15 v MIBP (No 2) (2016) 242 FCR 11
BBK15 v MIBP (2016) 241 FCR 150
MIAC v MZYYL (2012) 207 FCR 211
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33; (2013) 210 FCR 505
MZAAJ v MIBP [2015] FCA 478
SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18
SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51
SZSPT v MIBP [2014] FCA 1245
_________________________________________________________________________________
In accordance with s 369 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Tribunal will not publish any
statement which may identify the applicant or any relative or dependant of the applicant.
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from
this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic
information.
_________________________________________________________________________________
In accordance with s 369 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Tribunal will not publish any
statement which may identify the applicant or any relative or dependant of the applicant.
Statement of reasons
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
3. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home
Affairs on 5 September 2024 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of
the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
4. The applicant, who claims to be a national of Papua New Guinea (PNG), applied for the visa
on 19 June 2024. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was
not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
5. On 13 September 2024, the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT)
for merits review of the delegate’s decision. On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the
Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
(the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14
October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act
gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already
completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 July 2025 to give evidence and present
arguments. However, the hearing was adjourned as the standard of interpretation was
inadequate. The hearing resumed with a different interpreter on 11 August 2025 (together
‘the hearing’). The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in
the Pidgin (PNG) and English languages.
7. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
BACKGROUND
8. The applicant is [an age] year old man from Enga Province in PNG. He first arrived in
Australia [in] March 2022 under the Pacific Labour Scheme. He returned twice to PNG in late
2023 and applied for protection on 19 June 2024.
Evidence before the Department
9. The information provided to the Department in support of the applicant’s claims to engage
Australia’s protection obligations was contained in his protection visa application form. In that
form, the applicant claimed that:
a. He left PNG because his life was in great danger due to tribal fighting in his village
in[District 1].
b. Warring tribes attacked his village and killed his [sibling] and other people and destroyed
property and burnt houses.
c. He sought help from the PNG Police Defence Force, but nothing has been done.
d. He did not move to another part of PNG because he was afraid of being attacked by
enemy tribes. He came to Australia through the seasonal work program.
e. His village was destroyed and some of his family members killed so he has no place to
return to. The enemy tribe wants to do more payback killings within his tribe and family.
He will be harmed or killed if he returns and located in any area of PNG.
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 1 of 15
10. The applicant also attached a number of photographs, several of which show him holding a
firearm and posing for the camera. Several others are close up shots of wounds or surgery.
There is no identifying information on these photos.
11. The delegate wrote to the applicant, requesting further information. The delegate explained
that they were concerned about the genuineness of the claims, due to the lack of detail and
evidence and invited the applicant to provide further information about the claims, as well as
to provide an explanation for the delay in applying for a protection visa (2 years and 3
months after arriving in Australia).
12. The applicant did not respond to the letter.
13. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not respond to a
request for further information and that, coupled with a lack of substantiating details in the
application, suggested that the claimed experiences were not genuine.
Evidence before the Tribunal
14. In his application to the Tribunal for merits review, the applicant attached a copy of the
delegate’s decision record.
15. The Tribunal was notified on 28 November 2024 that the applicant had appointed an
authorised legal representative.
16. A hearing was originally scheduled for 19 June 2025, however the Tribunal received a
request for postponement as the applicant had been a victim of domestic violence. Attached
supporting documentation to the request included a copy of an interim intervention order and
a medical discharge summary. The hearing was postponed until 17 July 2025.
17. The applicant provided a statutory declaration to the Tribunal dated 11 July 2025. In
summary, the contents of the statutory declaration are as follows:
a. His protection visa application was prepared for him by an individual to whom he was
referred by other PNG nationals living in Australia. He was not advised what information
was included in the application and it contains errors which he aims to rectify.
b. He was born in [Village 1], [District 1], Enga Province and belongs to [Tribe 1]. He has
never been married and has no biological children but is currently the step-father of [Child
A] who is the biological son of his former partner, [Partner A]. [Child A] is [age] years old
and resides with his mother’s sister in [City 1].
c. The applicant’s father’s name is [Father A] who divorced the applicant’s mother when the
applicant was [age] year old. The applicant does not have a relationship with him.
d. The applicant’s mother’s name is [Mother A]. She raised the applicant along with her
brother. The applicant has [siblings], all of whom are married and reside with their
spouses in different parts of PNG. The applicant is not in contact with [most of his
siblings].
e. [One sibling and partner] were forced to leave the village due to tribal conflict around
2012 and they now reside in the [partner’s] village in Enga Province, for their safety. The
applicant is in contact with [this sibling].
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 2 of 15
f. His mother has suffered [from Medical condition 1]. She currently lives in [City 2] with a
cousin. His maternal uncle still resides in [Village 1] although the applicant is no longer in
contact with him.
g. The applicant left school in [a grade] due to the tribal fighting and worked as a
subsistence farmer with his mother and uncle.
h. His maternal grandfather was the chief of [Village 1] but passed away before the applicant
was born. During tribal conflicts, his grandfather’s role would be to act as mediator. After
his passing, no one took over as chief and so there was no mediator in conflicts between
tribes. As the grandson, the applicant carries the same surname and so is easily
recognisable.
i. In 2012, the applicant’s family home was burnt down by four enemy tribes working
together from [District 2]. The family ran away overnight and, when they returned the
following morning, saw that the village had been completely destroyed.
j. As a result, the applicant’s tribe engaged in warfare with the four neighbouring tribes.
Although he had no desire to fight, the applicant was told that he must. He was provided
with a gun and attacked the tribes one day. He did not harm or kill anyone and merely
fired shots in the air. He was only [age] at the time and was traumatised. The tribes
eventually reached a temporary agreement.
k. Tribal conflict continued on and off for the next 10 years and many people died. His family
and the applicant would move around frequently to avoid the tribes. He was living with a
group of men who were constantly on the move, never staying in the same area for more
than a few weeks. When another tribe assisted them and one of their members died, the
group of men were expected to pay compensation. This was a way to keep alliances.
l. The applicant lives in constant fear and was denied an education and opportunity to earn
a livelihood because of tribal warfare. One day, he heard about work visas for Australia
and took the opportunity to leave PNG. He was granted a Pacific Labour Scheme visa on
17 August 2021 and departed for Australia on [date] March 2022.
m. He delayed applying for a protection visa because he held a valid visa until 2025 and
asked his company to extend it. The applicant thought that this was the quickest and
easiest way to continue to reside in Australia. However, the company refused to extend it.
The applicant’s fear was not fully developed until after he returned to PNG twice in 2023
and observed how dangerous the situation has become. He also did not know about the
option of applying for a protection visa until he had discussed with some other PNG
nationals.
n. The applicant returned to PNG twice. The first time he returned to [Village 1]. He was told
it was unsafe and that the tribal violence was worse. He stayed at his cousin’s house and
only left a few times to visit his mother a few times in a village about 30 to 40 minutes
walk from [Village 1]. While in PNG, he realised how dangerous and unliveable it had
become.
o. He returned again to visit his mother who was then receiving treatment at [City 2] hospital
and staying with her cousin. He stayed for 8 days with his mother’s cousin, and only left
the house to travel back to the airport.
p. Since returning to Australia, he has leant that the tribal conflict has become worse. His
mother told him that petty criminals, known as ‘rascals’ had been hired by an enemy tribe
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 3 of 15
to kill his cousin. The applicant has seen [Social media 1] posts referring to his cousin’s
murder.
q. He fears being targeted and killed by enemy tribal groups on account of his membership
of [Tribe 1] and due to his uncle’s profile as chief of [Village 1].
r. Police are corrupt and not equipped to stop the fighting. Authorities are unable and
unwilling to intervene in tribal conflicts.
s. The applicant’s tribe has many enemy tribal groups whose reach extends to all parts of
the country including Port Moresby.
t. The applicant wants to correct a number of errors that were in his protection visa
application as follows:
He provides the names and dates of birth of his [siblings].
The application incorrectly stated that his [sibling] was killed. In fact, it was a
male cousin.
He cannot read or write in English and his speaking ability is limited.
He never approached the authorities in PNG to gain protection, as the
authorities have no power to stop tribal conflicts.
The application suggested that fighting stopped after 2012 but this was not
the case, it continued since then and has become worse in recent years.
He is a PNG citizen.
18. The applicant also submitted two screenshots of messages purportedly sent by his mother
which confirms that he visited PNG twice at the end of 2023. Other messages state that
there has been violence in May 2024, June 2025 and July 2025.
The Hearing
19. At the hearing, in summary, the applicant gave the following evidence:
a. He grew up in [Village 1 with his siblings].
b. [One sibling] moved his [partner’s] village in 2011, about 2 or 3 hours walk away and has
not come back to [Village 1] since ‘the trouble’ in 2012. The [partner’s] village is still in
[District 1]. His [sibling] is safe where [he/she] is and is protected by [his/her] in-laws.
c. In 2012, 4 enemy tribes came to [Village 1] and burnt the houses. The applicant and other
members of his tribe went to their villages the next day to retaliate. The conflict escalated
and there was a big fight, men died, women were raped and property destroyed. This
went on for 6 or 7 months. The applicant only held his gun and stood by. He was never
harmed and he never harmed anyone else.
d. After the conflict ended, he stayed in his village area, farming. He stayed there until he
left for Australia in 2022.
e. While the fighting between tribes stopped, isolated incidents of gun shots and killings kept
going, and they continue still.
f. When he returned in 2023, he stayed for 3 weeks in his village, only going out of it to visit
his mother with a group of other young men.
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 4 of 15
g. His mother was in [City 2] for medical treatment and now lives in [Village 2], about 30
minutes from [Village 1] by foot. The applicant says that she is not really secure where
she is.
h. His maternal uncle still lives in [Village 1]. The applicant is not in recent contact with him
as the uncle does not have a good phone.
i. It is mainly the young men who have been ‘on the battlefield’ who are in danger. His uncle
is now old and not a target. His [sibling] is married and has children, so is not a target.
j. In about May or June 2024, an enemy tribe paid people to assassinate his cousin. His
cousin was living with the applicant’s mother in [Village 2]. The assassins surrendered to
police and were jailed. One of them died in jail. No other family members of the applicant
have been killed or hurt.
k. The police are unable to stop the violence in the highlands. They do not go into the bush,
only staying on the highway.
20. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had lived in his village for 10 years after the fighting in
2012 and had not come to harm. The applicant said that the violence was unpredictable and
that he constantly felt under threat when he was there.
21. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he returned the first time in 2023 for 3 weeks, if he
feared persecution. The applicant responded that he realised at that time that the violence
was becoming worse and he did not realise the extent of the danger that he was in. He went
back a second time as he thought that his mother was dying and wanted to see her.
22. The Tribunal asked if his fear was specific to him in any way. The applicant said that all
young men in the area who had been on the battlefield felt threatened and lived with a sense
of insecurity. The representative noted that the fear was specific to the applicant in that he
came from [Tribe 1] which is a quite a small, specific tribe.
Post Hearing Submissions
23. Following the hearing, at the representative’s request, the Tribunal granted the applicant
additional time to provide submissions.
24. On 28 August 2025, the representative provided three videos, showing a village burning and
a mob walking through a village. These purport to show the applicant’s village burning and
[Tribe 2] walking through the village where the applicant’s mother lives.
25. A statutory declaration from the applicant, dated 26 August 2025, was also provided to the
Tribunal. The applicant declares that:
a. There have been a series of violent incidents in his home province of Enga.
b. His cousin [Cousin A] was killed [in] August 2025. [Cousin A] was caught in cross fire
when members of [Tribe 2] were attempting to assassinate a politician.
c. The applicant’s tribe retaliated, and another five people were killed. [Tribe 2] men
marched through [Village 2] where the applicant’s mother lives.
d. The applicant could not safely relocate to Port Moresby and he also fears retaliation from
his ex-partner’s family.
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 5 of 15
26. The representative also provided post-hearing submissions which (in summary):
a. Provide references to media reporting of the violence between [Tribes 1 and 2].
b. Submit that the applicant’s fear of harm is not localised to the applicant’s home region
and that he cannot safely or reasonably relocate to Port Moresby.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
27. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one
of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in
respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other
‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a
person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
28. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa
is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has
protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
29. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the
country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or
unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a
person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former
habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling
to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
30. Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted
for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political
opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons,
and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional
requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a
person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which
are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
31. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may
nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia
in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the
Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable
consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that
he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).
The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not
to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted
in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
32. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has
taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’
prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared
by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination
purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 6 of 15
REASONS AND FINDINGS
33. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a refugee or a person who meets the
criterion for complementary protection. The Tribunal also needs to consider whether the
applicant is a member of the same family unit as a person who is a refugee or meets the
criterion for complementary protection. A summary of the relevant law and mandatory
considerations is set out above, and an extract of key provisions of the Act is provided in the
Attachment.
34. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be set aside
and remitted for reconsideration.
35. The applicant’s identity and country of reference
36. The applicant claims to be a citizen of PNG. The applicant provided a copy of his passport to
the Department. The Department accepted the applicant’s identity. There is nothing before
the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant is not the person identified in the application for
protection.
37. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a citizen of PNG which is also his receiving country
for the purposes of refugee and complementary protection assessments.
38. On the basis of the consistent evidence that he has provided, the Tribunal also accepts that
the applicant is a member of [Tribe 1], from [Village 1] in Enga Province.
39. The applicant’s background
40. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has [siblings] and that he was raised by his mother
and maternal uncle. On the basis of the evidence the applicant provided, it accepts that his
mother’s health is of concern and that the applicant returned twice in 2023 to visit her.
41. The applicant’s claims for protection
42. The Tribunal has some concerns over the consistency of the applicant’s evidence. For
example, the applicant said in his statutory declaration of 11 July 2025 that for the 10 years
after the 2012 conflict, he lived with a group of men who were ‘constantly on the move’ and
would never stay in the same area for more than a few weeks at a time. At the hearing
however, the applicant said that he stayed in his village, worked as a subsistence farmer,
and never left the area.
43. However, the Tribunal acknowledges that it had some difficulty with interpretation during the
hearing and is mindful that there may be variations and discrepancies in evidence that occur
when evidence is communicated through an interpreter. On the basis of the applicant’s
testimony and the evidence provided, it accepts the applicant’s main claim that he was
involved in tribal violence in 2012 and has lived in a state of insecurity since then.
44. Country information supports the applicant’s claims of tribal violence in Enga Province. The
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in its 2025 Country Information Report Papua New
Guinea (DFAT Report) states that
Tensions between and within PNG’s hundreds of different tribal groups may be
triggered for a variety of reasons, including land and territory-related issues,
accusations of sorcery and witchcraft, souring of relationships and misunderstandings
after altercations. Simmering tensions are sometimes exacerbated by economic and
political factors, such as the distribution of opportunities generated by resource
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 7 of 15
projects, uneven investment, rapid population growth feeding unemployment and
service delivery favouring some groups over others. 1 …
..Most outbreaks resulting in serious injury or death occur in the provinces of Enga,
Hela and the Southern Highlands.2
.. Approximately 450 people were killed in Enga Province from 2012 to 2024 due to
tribal fighting. In-country sources said a further 1,500 people were injured. There
were 139 reported cases of sexual violence carried out by fighters, resulting in around
10-15 women being killed. In addition to these casualties, 40 health care centres
were destroyed and 20 schools damaged. From 2012 to 2024, 16,000 people were
displaced in Enga (a province with a population of over 570,000). Between
September 2023 and February 2024, 52 people were reportedly killed in Enga
province, the majority hired fighters. Tensions flared again in the Lagaip-Porgera
district of Enga in late 2024 but in-country sources said authorities were actively
addressing law and order challenges in the province. The security situation in Hela
and the Southern Highlands Province remained stable at the time of writing. 3
45. Country information also supports the applicant’s claims that the violence is getting worse
and that it was only when he returned to PNG in 2023 that the applicant realised the extent
of the danger. The DFAT report confirms that:
Although inter-tribal conflict has remained stable, the level of associated violence and
casualties in the Highlands has worsened considerably since 2020, primarily due to
the increased use of firearms and the introduction of fighters for hire. In the 1990s, it
was extremely rare for anyone in PNG to own a gun. In-country sources estimated
two-thirds of families in the Highlands Region possessed a firearm in 2024. In-country
sources said use of Mount Hagen as a transhipment point for guns used in inter-tribal
conflicts in Enga and Hela provinces had increased. Hired fighters were also
increasingly deployed, being paid approximately PGK5,000 (AUD1,895) a week by
tribal communities. Hired fighters reportedly do not follow traditional rules. Given they
lack community ties or loyalties, hired fighters may switch sides if not paid. 4
46. On the basis of the above country information and the applicant’s testimony, the Tribunal
accepts that there is a high level of inter-tribal violence in the applicant’s home area and that,
if the applicant were to return to [Village 1, District 1] in Enga Province, he would face a real
chance of harm.
47. Further, on the basis of the country information which shows the figures of deaths and
injuries in Enga Province, as well as the increasing prevalence and use of firearms and hired
fighters, the Tribunal accepts that the harm that the applicant would face would constitute
serious harm.
48. The applicant claimed in his statutory declaration that he faced harm due to his relationship
with a former chief of [Village 1], having the same surname. However, he said at the hearing
that his uncle and [sibling], also with the same surname, are not at risk and that the reason
that he is at risk is because he is a young, single male from a tribe in Enga Province.
49. The Tribunal finds that the applicant belongs to a particular social group of young single men
from tribes in Enga Province. Given the country information about tribal violence in that area,
the Tribunal is satisfied that being a member of this particular social group is the essential
and significant reason for the harm. The harm is systematic and discriminatory because it is
1
DFAT Report at [2.74]
2
DFAT Report at [2.76]
3
DFAt Report at [2.80].
4
DFAT Report at [2.79].
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 8 of 15
targeted at the applicant’s tribe, specifically the young single men, due to the disputes with
enemy tribes which have motivated the inter-tribal violence.
50. The Tribunal has considered whether the harm relates to all areas of PNG, as required by
s5J(1)(c).
51. It notes that the most recent DFAT report, issued in 2025, states as follows:
52. Violence is often geographically limited. Most outbreaks resulting in serious injury or
death occur in the provinces in Enga, Hela and the Southern Highlands. Despite increased
media reporting on inter-communal tensions in PNG outside the Highlands, these conflicts
rarely result in casualties. While there have been instances where grievances between tribal
groups have extended beyond the initial geographic area, in country sources said this was
now rare and quickly contained by the larger police presence in urban areas .5
53. DFAT also assesses that:
Internal relocation to urban areas with larger policing presences can mitigate risks
posed by violence perpetrated by non-state actors.6
54. Based on the assessment of this very recent DFAT report, the Tribunal finds that the harm
which may be faced by the applicant, due to being a young, single male from a tribe in Enga
province, does not relate to all areas of PNG.
55. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets the refugee criterion in s
36(2)(a) of the Act.
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
56. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the
Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
57. In doing so, the Tribunal has considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing
that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from
Australia, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
58. Above, the Tribunal found that the applicant faces a real chance of harm if he returns to PNG
in the foreseeable future. The ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’
test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ for the purposes of s 5J of the Act.7It
follows that the Tribunal finds that the applicant faces a real risk of harm if he returns to
PNG. Further, the Tribunal finds that the harm that the applicant faces amounts to significant
harm as defined in s36(2A). This is on the basis of the country information cited above,
which describes the violence, death and casualties caused by inter-tribal conflict.
Relocation
59. Under s 36(2B)(a) of the Act, there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer
significant harm in a country if the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be reasonable for the
applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the
applicant will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal draws guidance from the judgments of the
High Court in SZATV v MIAC and SZFDV v MIAC which held that whether relocation is
reasonable, in the sense of ‘practicable’, must depend upon the particular circumstances of
5
DFAT Report at [2.76].
6
DFAT Report at [2.84].
7
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33; (2013) 210 FCR 505,
551 [246], 557-58 [297], 565 [342].
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 9 of 15
the applicant and the impact upon that person of relocation within his or her country: SZATV
v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18 and SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51, per Gummow, Hayne &
Crennan JJ, Callinan J agreeing.
60. The Tribunal has considered whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to
an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer
significant harm. In doing so, it has considered the applicant’s particular circumstances.
61. DFAT advises that Papua New Guineans regularly migrate to big cities like Port Moresby,
Lae and Mt Hagen in search of better opportunities but also to avoid tribal violence.8 The
Tribunal notes DFAT’s advice that:
Papua New Guineans relocating from rural to urban areas, even those internally
displaced due to inter-tribal conflicts and natural disasters, often rely on assistance
from their wantok due to a lack of government services. The wantok system of social
kinship, welfare and mutual obligation ensures all members of a tribe (including single
and divorced women) receive support. CSOs and faith-based organisations in urban
areas provide support to internally displaced people and FSV survivors in the form of
food, financial assistance for immediate needs and sometimes assistance with
employment and training. 9
62. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claims that he does not have wantok or other contacts
in Port Moresby, which was also supported by the representative’s submission that [Tribe 1]
are a relatively small tribe. It finds that, if he were to relocate to an urban area such as Port
Moresby, he would have no support or assistance from wantok. While it may be possible for
him to receive some assistance from community or faith-based organisations, country
information quoted above seems to indicate that assistance may be limited to immediate
needs rather than longer term support.
63. Additionally, the applicant has not finished school and has no particular qualifications. The
Tribunal notes that DFAT reports that growing rural to urban migration has led to
overcrowding and insufficient economic opportunities in urban areas. Further, there is no
formal welfare system in PNG.
64. The Tribunal has also considered that the applicant has recently been traumatised by the
violence committed on him by his ex-partner in Australia, and by the recent shooting death of
his cousin, as described in his statutory declaration of 26 August 2025. Coupled with the lack
of wantok outside his home area and lack of access to other supports, the Tribunal does not
consider that relocation is reasonable for the applicant.
Protection from an authority
65. Under s 36(2B)(b) of the Act there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer
significant harm in a country if the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant could obtain, from
an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the
applicant will suffer significant harm. That is, the level of protection must be such to reduce
the risk of the applicant being significantly harmed to something less than a ‘real risk’: MIAC
v MZYYL (2012) 207 FCR 211. The provision requires consideration of the source and
nature of the harm faced, the nature and degree of protection able to be afforded by the
authorities from the specific harm faced, whether that protection could be obtained, and
whether, upon obtaining that protection there would still be a real risk of significant harm:
ABAR15 v MIBP (No 2) (2016) 242 FCR 11 at [60]–[61].
8
DFAT Report at [5.28].
9
DFAT Report at [5.29].
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 10 of 15
66. The Tribunal notes DFAT advice in relation to the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary
(RPNGC) as follows:
The RPNGC is the national police force responsible for the investigation of crime and
maintaining internal security across PNG. The strength of the RPNGC in 2024 was
approximately 5,200 active personnel, with a further 600 cadets in training. The PNG
Government stated it was aiming for the RPNGC to have a total of 10,000 officers by
2030. In-country sources said this goal was unlikely to be achieved without significant
budget increases. Previous efforts to increase RPNGC staffing have been hindered
by a lack of suitable accommodation options for police officers given provision of
accommodation is a strict requirement of employment.
The effectiveness of the RPNGC is limited by resource and staffing constraints, as
well as low morale and high rates of absenteeism. Police officers are routinely
restricted from investigating crimes due to shortages of vehicles and fuel. When
crimes take place in remote rural areas, it is often difficult for police to investigate,
make arrests and collect evidence due to challenging geographic factors and weather
conditions. In addition, police officers are only deployed where accommodation is
available (primarily barracks in smaller provincial capitals), not always where high
rates of crime are taking place. As a result of inadequate resource allocation and
staffing, in-country sources said there were sometimes significant delays in
responding to requests for assistance, with police often deprioritising investigation of
cases not deemed ‘high priority’.10
67. DFAT also, however, acknowledges that there have been improvements in policing in PNG
since 2023:
68. Until 2023, funding for the PNGDF and RPNGC in the Highlands Region had not kept
pace with rapid population growth. The resulting power vacuum exacerbated tribal violence.
In response, the PNG Government deployed 120 PNGDF soldiers, two Mobile Squad units
and 200 additional ‘security personnel’ with two armoured vehicles to Enga Province in
August 2023. This included the first deployment of the ‘Kumul 23 Police tactical unit’
(Kumul23), a special RPNGC unit dedicated solely to dealing with issues of ‘domestic
terrorism’ (inter-tribal conflict). Kumul23 combines police and defence force personnel. It is
tasked with arresting ‘domestic terrorist ringleaders’ and dismantling terrorist cells. Kumul23 is
equipped with lethal and non-lethal weapons. In-country sources said police capacity and
willingness to investigate and prevent tribal fighting had improved significantly since 2023 .11
69. The Tribunal remains mindful of country information which shows the increasing use of
firearms and the introduction of fighters for hire, which has resulted in casualties in violence
in Enga province. It is also mindful of the video submitted to the Tribunal by the applicant
showing a horde of armed, agitated men marching on masse in a village. Even with the
improvements to police capacity referred to above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the PNG
authorities can provide a level of protection in Enga province that would reduce the risk of
the applicant being significantly harmed to something less than a ‘real risk’.
Personalised risk
70. Under s 36(2B)(c) of the Act there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer
significant harm if the Tribunal is satisfied that the real risk is one faced by the population
generally and is not faced by the applicant personally. The term ‘population of the country
generally’ refers to the commonly understood concept of the general population, such that
there is no requirement that the risk be faced by all members or every citizen of a country’s
population for s 36(2B)(c) to apply: BBK15 v MIBP (2016) 241 FCR 150 at [32]. The
reasoning in BBK15 and other Federal Court judgments (SZSPT v MIBP [2014] FCA 1245;
10
DFAT Report at [5.3-5.4].
11
DFAT Report at [2.82].
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 11 of 15
MZAAJ v MIBP [2015] FCA 478) indicates that s 36(2B)(c) will apply where a real risk is
faced by an individual applicant, but is the same as the risk faced by the general population.
However, s 36(2B)(c) requires a decision-maker to determine whether the risk faced by an
applicant is a risk faced by the population of the country generally, not to the population in a
particular area of the country such as a particular city or province.
71. The risk that the applicant faces is due to tribal violence in Enga province, and to his
particular profile of a single, young man from [Tribe 1]. The Tribunal is satisfied that the
general population of PNG does not face the same risk as the applicant.
72. The Tribunal does not find that the applicant has a right to enter and reside in any third
country. It finds that s 36(3) does not apply to the applicant.
73. Given the above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets the complementary
protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
74. CONCLUSION
75. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in
respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
76. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the
Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is satisfied that
the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under
s 36(2)(aa).
DECISION
77. The Tribunal sets aside and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in
accordance with the order that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
Hearing: 17 July 2025 and 11 August 2025
Representative: Mr Benjamin Stern
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 12 of 15
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b) pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all
the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d) arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the
Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme
humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental
to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person:
(a) for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b) for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed
or is suspected of having committed; or
(c) for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d) for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e) for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that
are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the
relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence,
regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H Meaning of refugee
(1) For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the
person is a refugee if the person is:
(a) in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and,
owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the
protection of that country; or
(b) in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former
habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to
it.
Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1) For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a
well-founded fear of persecution if:
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 13 of 15
(a) the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion; and
(b) there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be
persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c) the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2) A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to
the person in a receiving country.
Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3) A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to
modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a
modification that would:
(a) conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b) conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c) without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i) alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his
or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii) conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii) alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv) conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v) enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage
of a child;
(vi) alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation,
gender identity or intersex status.
(4) If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and
significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b) the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c) the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5) Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of
serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b) significant physical harassment of the person;
(c) significant physical ill-treatment of the person;
(d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to
subsist.
(6) In determining whether the person has a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons
mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded
unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the
purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person),
in determining whether the first person has a well-founded fear of persecution for the reason of
membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member
(whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or
persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i) the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii) any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the
fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 14 of 15
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be
treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a) a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b) the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c) any of the following apply:
(i) the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii) the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should
not be forced to renounce it;
(iii) the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1) For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective
protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i) the relevant State; or
(ii) a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or
a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such
protection.
(2) A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection
against persecution to a person if:
(a) the person can access the protection; and
(b) the protection is durable; and
(c) in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate
criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36 Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2) A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection
obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom
the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial
grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being
removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer
significant harm; or
(b) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i) is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii) holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i) is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii) holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A) A non-citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a) the non-citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non-citizen; or
(c) the non-citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d) the non-citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e) the non-citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B) However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non-citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if
the Minister is satisfied that:
(a) it would be reasonable for the non-citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not
be a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) the non-citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be
a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
Tribunal Number 2433151 Page 15 of 15
(c) the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non-citizen
personally.
…
