Arb18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, who was born in Afghanistan and claimed to have fled due to persecution by the Taliban, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs. The applicant's claims for refugee status were based on his alleged disobedience of Taliban instructions, cooperation with the Afghan Government, and the risk he would face as an asylum seeker returning from the West. The Authority did not accept the entirety of the applicant's narrative but found his general circumstances in Afghanistan to be credible.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Authority, in assessing the reasonableness and practicality of the applicant's internal relocation to Kabul, conducted the requisite "fact intensive assessment" as required by law. This issue was raised by the Court, as the applicant's filed grounds of review did not identify any discernible ground of jurisdictional error. The Court considered the principles established in *MZANX v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* and *SZATV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* regarding the assessment of internal relocation.

The Court noted that the Authority's decision to affirm the refusal of the visa was underpinned by its finding that the applicant could relocate to Kabul. However, the Court highlighted that the assessment of whether relocation is "reasonable" or "practicable" requires a detailed examination of the individual's circumstances and the specific conditions in the proposed safe location, rather than relying on generalities. The Court indicated its willingness to allow further submissions on the raised issue, but counsel for the Minister indicated no further time was required.

The Authority had concluded that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Khost province, his home district, due to the risk of being identified as returning from a western country and being targeted by the Taliban. However, the Authority then considered section 36(2B) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which provides that there is taken not to be a real risk of significant harm if it would be reasonable for the non-citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be such a risk. The Court's focus was on whether the Authority adequately assessed the reasonableness of relocation to Kabul in light of this provision.