AHX15 v Minister for Immigration

This matter came before Judge Street concerning an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant, AHX15, sought to challenge the Tribunal's findings regarding his claims for complementary protection and refugee status. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Pakistan, and if so, whether relocation to another part of Pakistan would be a reasonable alternative.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal erred in its assessment of the applicant's claims for complementary protection and refugee status. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the Tribunal correctly applied the principles relating to complementary protection, Ministerial Direction 56, and the assessment of a real chance of persecution. A key aspect of the Tribunal's reasoning, and thus a point of contention, was its consideration of whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate within Pakistan, and whether the applicant's personal circumstances, including his physical injury and lack of family support, rendered such relocation impracticable.

The Tribunal's reasoning, as outlined in its decision, involved a structured approach that included assessing the applicant's credibility, his claims of persecution based on religion, ethnicity, and membership of particular social groups, and the possibility of internal relocation. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims of receiving threat letters were not credible, suggesting an attempt to embellish his case. However, it did find a real chance that the applicant would face serious harm for Convention reasons if he returned to his home region. Despite this, the Tribunal then considered whether relocation to a different part of Pakistan, specifically Islamabad, would be reasonable. The Tribunal concluded that there was no appreciable risk of persecution in Islamabad and that relocation was practicable, taking into account the availability of prosthetics and the applicant's demonstrated capacity to work and manage independently. The Tribunal ultimately found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution if he relocated to Islamabad, even when considering the cumulative effect of his circumstances.