BDA17 v Minister for Immigration

[2019] FCCA 1249

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BDA17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2019] FCCA 1249

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Immigration Assessment Authority – whether the Authority erred in concluding that it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate – whether the Authority failed to properly consider relocation – no jurisdictional error identified – amended application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.5H, 36, 473CB, 473DD, 476

Cases cited:

MZANX v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 307

Applicant: BDA17

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number: PEG 150 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 13 May 2019

Date of Last Submission: 13 May 2019

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 13 May 2019

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr R Jahnke
Estrin Saul Lawyers

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms E Tattersall
Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The name of the First Respondent is amended to “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs” and the Court dispenses with the need for the filing of a document in this regard.

2. The Amended Application is dismissed.

3. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $6,300.00.

DATE OF ORDER: 13 May 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

PEG 150 of 2017

BDA17

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for a Constitutional writ within the Court’s jurisdiction under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) in respect of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (“the Authority”) under Part 7AA made on 24 February 2017 affirming a decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant a Safe Have Enterprise visa.

2. The applicant is a citizen of Afghanistan and his claims were assessed that country. The applicant arrived in Australia on 28 March 2013 as an unauthorised maritime arrival. The applicant was found to be of Hazara ethnicity and a Shia Muslim. The applicant was born in a particular village in the Ghazni Province and departed Afghanistan with his family for Iran in around 1993 or 1994 after his father was killed. The applicant’s mother was allegedly forced to marry the applicant’s uncle and they resided in Iran. The applicant alleged that there were arrangements for him to marry a particular person and that a particular person was seen riding with the applicant on his motorbike and that he was sent a letter by police requiring him to attend. The applicant was also sent a further letter and when the applicant did not attend, police came to his home. It was alleged that the particular person’s brothers came to the house and beat the applicant with a stick and also punched and kicked him.

3. The applicant alleged if he returns to Afghanistan the extended family of this particular person could make trouble for him. The applicant also claimed to fear harm by reason of his Hazara ethnicity and having arrived in Australia as a young person, has become very accustomed to a way of life here. 

4. The applicant also claimed to fear harm by reason of one of his brothers having returned to Afghanistan due to discrimination in Iran working for an American company and that the applicant feared being targeted because of this brother’s work.

5. The applicant also claimed to fear harm by reason of the increased violence and rise of Daesh and that he would be harmed by the Taliban and other extremist paramilitary groups like Daesh because of his Hazara ethnicity, his Shia religion and his having spent little time in Afghanistan and having spent a considerable amount of time in Iran and also in a western country, and because of being an asylum seeker from a western country. The applicant also claimed to fear that if he was returned to Afghanistan he would be rendered destitute and have no community support. 

6. On 16 September 2016, a delegate found the applicant failed to meet the criteria for the grant of a Safe Haven Enterprise visa. 

7. On 23 September 2016, the Authority wrote to the applicant explaining that the application for the visa had been referred to the Authority for review. The letter provided an attached fact sheet and practice direction giving the applicant an opportunity to put on new information and submissions. The applicant did put on submissions and they were referred to in the Authority’s reasons. The Authority identified the background to the visa application and had regard to the material referred by the Secretary under s 473CB of the Act. 

8. The Authority had regard to the submissions insofar as they engaged with the delegate’s decision. The Authority considered the new information in accordance with the requirements of s 473DD of the Act.

9. The Authority summarised the applicant’s claims. The Authority was not satisfied that the particular person’s family gives rise to a real chance that they would seek to harm the applicant if returned to Afghanistan. 

10. The Authority referred to the applicant’s claims in relation to this brother and what happened to his brother on return to their home village. The Authority identified a significant lack of amount detail in relation to the brother’s location in Afghanistan and the name of the employer or in relation about what occurred regarding the brother being threatened. The Authority was not satisfied the applicant’s eldest brother has been working for an American company in Afghanistan and was not satisfied the applicant faced a real chance of harm for this reason if returned to Afghanistan. 

11. The Authority was, however, satisfied the applicant would face a real chance of being abducted and killed if he attempted to return to his home village and referred to country information and the method of travel over land that the applicant would be required to undertake. 

12. It was in those circumstances the Authority identified pursuant to s 5J of the Act, that the real chance of persecution must relate to all areas of the receiving country. The Authority referred to Kabul as a place the applicant may be able to relocate to and reside which was raised at the TPV interview with the applicant and referred to the applicant’s response that the Taliban and Islamic State were killing people every week all over Afghanistan, and that nowhere was safe. 

13. The Authority referred to the applicant’s claims and country information and took into account the current and foreseeable extent of attacks perpetrated against Shia Muslims and Shia Hazaras in Kabul as well as the size of Kabul’s population and the dispersal of the community. The Authority did not accept the applicant was currently of specific interest to Islamic State or any other insurgent group as an individual. The Authority was not satisfied on the evidence that, for the foreseeable future, as to the prospect of the applicant suffering harm in Kabul from an insurgent group like Islamic State or the Taliban for reason of being a Shia Hazari reaching that of a real chance. 

14. The Authority also found that the evidence does not indicate that the applicant would face a real chance of suffering serious harm from any other actor in Kabul for reasons of being a Shia Muslim and/or Hazara.  The Authority referred to other country information in relation to Shia Hazaras and was not satisfied there is a real chance that the applicant would face a real chance of harm by reason of illegal taxation, forced recruitment, forced labour, physical abuse and detention by reason of being a Shia Hazara in Kabul.

15. The Authority referred to the country information of discrimination faced by Shias including the Hazara community being more likely to be societal in nature and primarily due to an important role played by ethnic, tribal and family networks in Afghan society and that discrimination generally occurs as a result of positive preference for members of one’s own family, tribal, ethnic or religious group rather than negative discrimination against others. The Authority referred to Professor Maley’s views in relation to Hazaras with no social connections in Kabul and found this view was not supported by the greater weight of evidence, with the UNHCR and DFAT reporting that societal connections are a necessity for a family group but not for a single male such as the applicant.

16. The Authority referred to the applicant facing a real chance of suffering this advantage of a kind in matters like employment market for reason of being a Shia Hazari in Kabul. 

17. However, the Authority found on the evidence that it was not satisfied that in Kabul the applicant would, on this basis, face a real chance of suffering discrimination at a level that would result in his becoming destitute or that would threaten his capacity to subsist including a denial of a capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind or to access basic services.  The Authority found the evidence does not suggest that for reason of being a Shia Hazara the applicant would face a real chance in Kabul of being killed, harassed or physically harmed in any way by, or suffering harm of any kind from any insurgent group like the Taliban, Daesh or Pashtuns or other non-Hazaras or from the Sunni majority community or any other actor. 

18. The Authority referred to the applicant’s claims in relation to being a returned asylum seeker and his sympathies for western countries and accepted that the applicant has spent most of his life in Iran and four years in Australia and that he prefers to western style clothes rather than traditional Afghan clothes. The Authority also referred to the applicant not being strictly observant in regard to regular prayers and fasting and that he has occasionally consumed beer and other forms of alcohol and does not believe in multiple wives or traditional Islamic alms giving. The Authority found the applicant remains a believer in Shia Islam and considers himself to be a Shia Muslim. 

19. The Authority found it was not satisfied there is a real chance that the applicant would face harm on the basis of drinking alcohol if returned to Afghanistan. The Authority referred to the consumption of alcohol and found that it was not an innate or unusual characteristic or fundamental characteristic of the applicant’s identity and was satisfied it would be reasonable for the applicant to modify his behaviour in relation to the consumption of alcohol. 

20. The Authority referred to the applicant’s claim that he would be identifiable as someone who had spent most of his life in Iran and the Authority referred to country information in relation to discrimination based on “non-Afghan-ness” and found these studies do not indicate that Hazara men, like the applicant, had been killed or had suffered violence or harassment in urban areas like Kabul as a consequence of having lived their lives outside of Afghanistan in Iran.

21. The Authority referred to country information in relation to finding work and found the evidence does not indicate that Hazaras who have lived in Iran and are settled in urban areas like Kabul are being targeted by any insurgent groups or that they are subject to any violence or physical harassment from their own ethnic or other ethnic communities. The Authority referred to discrimination faced by Shias in Afghanistan, including the Hazara community being more likely to be societal in nature as a result of the role played by ethnic, tribal and familial networks in Afghan society and that discrimination generally occurs as a result of positive preference rather than negative discrimination against others. 

22. The Authority accepted that the applicant may face some discrimination and mockery for reason of his “non-Afghan-ness”, that he may be viewed with suspicion and that the applicant may suffer some disadvantage in the employment market where others are advantaged because of their family, ethnic or tribal or religious connections. The Authority was not however satisfied on the evidence, that the applicant would, on the basis of being a Shia Hazara who had lived most of his life in Iran and outside of Afghanistan, face a real chance of suffering discrimination of a level that would result in his becoming destitute or that would threaten his capacity to subsist such as through denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind or to access basic services, or that he would face a real chance of suffering mockery so pervasive and malicious that it would amount to serious harm for the applicant. 

23. The Authority found the evidence did not support that the applicant faced a real chance in Kabul of being killed, or harassed, or physically harmed in any way, or suffered harm of any other kind from an insurgent group like the Taliban or Daesh, or by Pashtuns or other non-Hazaras, or by Afghan Hazaras, or any other actor. The Authority was not satisfied the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm on this basis.

24. The Authority referred to the applicant’s views and accepted that some may disagree with the applicant’s views and then get into an argument with him but it did not consider this would amount to serious harm. The Authority also accepted that the applicant may face some discrimination if such matters were broached with an employer or fellow colleague.  However, on the evidence, the Authority was not satisfied that the applicant would on this basis face a real chance in Kabul of suffering discrimination of a level that would result in him becoming destitute or that would threaten his capacity to subsist such as through denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind or to access basic services. 

25. The Authority referred to country information in respect of incidents in Kabul and was not satisfied there was a real chance that the applicant would face serious harm in Kabul on the basis of his views or beliefs. 

26. The Authority found there is not a real chance that a particular person’s family would seek to harm the applicant if returned to Afghanistan and was not satisfied that there is a real chance that the dispute in relation to that particular person would result in the applicant being harmed by any other person in Afghanistan. The Authority referred to the applicant’s views in relation to women and did not accept there is a real chance the applicant would be harmed on this basis in the future if he returned to Kabul. 

27. The Authority referred to the applicant’s claims in relation to the Taliban and Islamic State as a failed asylum seeker. The Authority accepted that the applicant’s accent and hairstyle and dress would cumulatively mean the applicant would be perceived as having affected western modes of dress and behaviour and that there is a real chance that he may be perceived as someone who has returned from a western country where he has sought asylum. 

28. The Authority referred to country information, including the UNHCR, “UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan 19 April 2016” and the focus on individual circumstances as well as DFAT country information reports and the submissions advanced by the applicant, and it accepted that the applicant may face some discrimination in the employment market. The Authority did not accept that the applicant would be unfamiliar with Afghanistan’s most significant customs and norms. 

29. In these circumstances, the Authority was not satisfied the applicant would face a real chance of being harmed in Kabul by an insurgent group like the Taliban, Islamic State, or by a dangerous person or some other actor, or being mugged or kidnapped for ransom or other criminal violence, or of suffering discrimination that would result in his becoming destitute or that would threaten his capacity to subsist such as through a denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind or to access basic services, or serious harm of any other kind, for reason of being a returnee from Australia where he has sought asylum, and/or, on the basis of his western dress and hairstyle and some manners of talking and/or as a consequence of his non-observance of some aspects of Islam such as prayers, fasting and alms giving and/or as having perceived links or sympathies for a western country, or as a consequence of not knowing Afghan custom and norms. 

30. The Authority was satisfied the applicant would not face a real chance of harm in Kabul as a consequence of a land ownership dispute in the applicant’s home area and the Authority also referred to considering whether the applicant faced a real chance of harm as a consequence of generalised violence and referred to country information. The Authority referred to the means by which the applicant would return to Kabul and was not satisfied the applicant would face a real chance of harm on the basis of generalised violence resulting from insurgent attacks in Kabul including when using the International airport to access Kabul.  

31. The Authority was not satisfied the applicant would face a real chance of harm in Kabul as a consequence of generalised violence such as being a civilian bystander to an attack perpetrated by an insurgent group or as a consequence of criminality.

32. The Authority referred to accepting the applicant may face some discrimination but was not satisfied that any disagreements or mockery that the applicant might experience would be so pervasive or malicious as to cause the applicant serious harm or that there is a real chance that he would suffer discrimination at a level that would result in the applicant becoming destitute or that would threaten his capacity to subsist such as through a denial of his capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind or to access basic services. The Authority was not satisfied there is a real chance that such harm would considered cumulatively, amount to serious harm for the applicant.

33. The Authority was not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant would face a real chance of harm of any other kind if returned to Kabul. The Authority was satisfied that the applicant would be familiar with Afghanistan’s most significant customs and norms and that the applicant would not choose to drink alcohol in Afghanistan because of his awareness of those customs and norms and that the applicant would be returning to Kabul rather than his home area. The Authority took into account the country information in relation to the evidence regarding security for failed asylum seekers who return from western countries like Australia to Kabul, or who have affected western behaviours and in relation to generalised violence and security matters in Kabul more broadly. The Authority was not satisfied the applicant would face a real chance of serious harm even if the applicant’s circumstances are considered cumulatively. 

34. The Authority referred to the applicant’s submissions and was not satisfied there is a real chance the situation may deteriorate to the extent that the applicant’s circumstances would result in his facing any chance of serious harm in Kabul. The Authority found the applicant did not meet the requirements and definition of refugee in s 5H(1) of the Act and found the applicant did not meet the criteria in s 36(2)(a) of the Act. 

35. The Authority then turned to the issue of complementary protection and referred to the requirements of s 36(2B) of the Act. The Authority expressly referred to accepting that for the foreseeable future there is a real risk the applicant may, in Kabul, face some discrimination from Afghans who have remained in this country for reason of having lived most of his life in Iran. The Authority also accepted the applicant would face a real chance of harm of this kind in Kabul as a consequence of his not being regularly observant of such Islamic practices as prayers and fasting and because of his disagreeing with certain Islamic and traditional practices. The Authority accepted the applicant may face a real chance of discrimination for reason of having returned from the west where he had sought asylum and because he had some western behaviours and because he has lived outside of Afghanistan for most of his life.

1. The Authority found that such discrimination may include encounters with persons who disagree and argue with and/or mock the applicant and may also result in the applicant experiencing some disadvantage in the employment market. The Authority, however, found that it was not satisfied that any discrimination, disagreements or mockery that the applicant might experience would result in the kind of intentionally inflicted severe pain or suffering that would amount to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or the kind of intentionally inflicted extreme humiliation which amounts to degrading treatment or punishment. The Authority found it would not amount to torture and it would not result in the applicant being arbitrarily deprived of his life or subjected to the death penalty. The Authority was not satisfied that such harm would amount to significant harm.

2. The Authority found, while the applicant may be disadvantaged by some discrimination in matters such as employment market, the Authority was not satisfied that the discrimination would result in the kind of intentionally inflicted severe pain or suffering that would amount to cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, or the kind intentionally inflicted or extreme humiliation which amounts to degrading treatment or punishment.  The Authority was not satisfied that such discrimination would deny the applicant capacity to earn a livelihood or access basic services such that it would arbitrarily deprive him of his life. The Authority found the discrimination would not amount to torture and would not result in the applicant being subjected to the death penalty. The Authority was not satisfied that such harm from discrimination would amount to significant harm. 

3. The Authority was not satisfied, for the reasons already given, that there is a real risk that the applicant would suffer harm of any other kind. The Authority referred to the risk of discrimination in employment faced by the applicant, considered in combination with the other risks faced by the applicant in Kabul and was not satisfied the applicant would face a real chance of significant harm.  The Authority referred to the applicant being familiar with Afghanistan’s most significant customs and norms and that the applicant would be returning to Kabul rather than his home area and took into account the country information in respect of the targeting of Shia Muslims and/or Hazaris for violence in Kabul. Given the evidence regarding security of the situation for failed asylum seekers who have affected western behaviours as well as generalised violence and the security situation the Authority was not satisfied the applicant would face a real chance of harm of any other kind in the applicant’s circumstances when considered in a cumulative manner.

4. The Authority referred to the applicant being able to safely and legally access Kabul directly by the Kabul International Airport. The Authority referred to country information in relation to relocation and found that the greater weight of evidence supports the view that it is possible for a single able bodied man, such as the applicant, to relocate in Afghanistan, even without social connections though it must be determined on the specific circumstances of the individual and the proposed area of relocation.

5. The Authority referred to the absence of reliable statistics in relation to unemployment and found that underemployment is also common. The Authority referred to DFAT country information, the “DFAT Thematic Report: Hazaras in Afghanistan”, 8 February 2016 and “DFAT Thematic Report: Conditions in Kabul”, 18 September 2015 in relation to employment as well as the situation for Hazaras in Kabul. 

6. The Authority referred to access to basic services and waste collection being better in informal areas than illegal areas and that many communities burn their waste which contributes to high levels of air pollution. The Authority referred to the cost of living in Kabul being relatively high and referred to rents, medical facilities and better quality services in Kabul than in other areas of Afghanistan. 

7. The Authority referred to the applicant’s eldest brother having returned and had doubts about whether the applicant had been completely forthcoming about his knowledge of where his elder brother resided in Afghanistan. The Authority took into account, in determining the reasonableness of relocation that the applicant had no family connections in Kabul. The Authority expressly found that the applicant may face some discrimination on the basis of having lived outside of Afghanistan and some of his views about Islam and traditional practices but found that he is nonetheless, a single able-bodied man with no vulnerabilities.

8. The Authority referred to the applicant while in Iran, working in welding and construction and that he worked also in his brother’s fruit market. The Authority referred to country information which advised that those best placed to find well-paid employment are returnees with foreign language skills and the Authority took into account that the applicant had demonstrated a good command of the English language and that he is familiar with using computers and the internet. It was in these circumstances, that the Authority considered the applicant’s circumstances as sufficiently favourable to offset the challenges of establishing himself in Kabul and that the applicant would be able to find employment sufficient for him to reside in one of the informal western Hazara neighbourhoods and that there is not a real risk the applicant would be destitute and/or forced to reside in an illegal settlement or on the street. 

9. The Authority referred to country information in relation to the services in Kabul and having regard to the applicant’s overall circumstances and the city’s livelihood, and security situation more broadly, was satisfied that it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to Kabul in an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. 

10. The Authority found there are not substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being returned from Australia to Afghanistan from Australia, there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm. The Authority found the applicant did not meet the criteria under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act and affirmed the decision under review.

The ground

1. The ground in the amended application are as follows:

   The Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) erred in concluding that it was reasonable for the Applicant to relocate to Kabul by unlawfully reaching its state of satisfaction through failing to undertake the task required under paragraph 36(2B)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

   Particulars

   The necessary task required the IAA to consider the material before it, which included its own findings:

   a. at [24] that ‘the emergence in Afghanistan of groups pledging support to Islamic State and conducting occasional mass casualty attacks against the Shia Hazaras in Kabul and elsewhere has raised the overall level of risk faced by Shia Hazaras in Afghanistan’ (the IS Finding);

   b. at [26] that ‘in Kabul there is a real chance that the applicant would, for reason of being a Shia Hazara, face a real chance of suffering an instance of disadvantage of such a kind in matters like the employment market for reason of his being a Shia Hazara [sic]’ (the Shia Hazara Employment Discrimination Finding);

   c. at [32] that the Applicant ‘may, on the basis of being an Afghan Shia Hazara who has lived most of his life in Iran and outside of Afghanistan, face a real chance of some discrimination and mockery for reason of his “non-Afghan-ness”’, including the way he speaks (with a foreign accent) and the way he dresses and wears his hear (the Foreigner Discrimination Finding);

   d. at [32] that ‘there is a real chance that some non-Hazara Afghans may view him with suspicion on the basis of his association with Iran’ (the Iranian Suspicion Finding);

   e. at [32] that ‘there is a real chance that the applicant may also suffer some disadvantage in the employment market where others are advantaged because of their family/tribal/ethnic/religious connections with a given employer or service provider’ (the Nepotism Employment Discrimination Finding);

   f. at [34] that ‘there is a real chance that some persons may disagree with the applicant’s views’ (which were that women were entitled to freedom of movement, and that he has ‘occasionally consumed beer and other forms of alcohol, that he does not believe in multiple wives or traditional Islamic alms giving, and that he disagrees with the prohibition on contact with women before marriage’) ‘and enter into argument with him’, and that he ‘may also face some discrimination if such matters were broached with an employer or fellow colleagues’ (the Liberal Views Discrimination Finding);

   g. at [37] that young Afghans who had returned ‘from the UK to Kabul had experienced harm or difficulties as a result of being viewed as “Westernized outsiders”, which in some cases was reportedly due to a perceived lapse in their practice of Islam’, and that ‘depending on the individual circumstances of the case individuals perceived as “westernized” may be in need of international protection’ (the Westernization Finding);

   h. at [42]-[45] and [49] that there was a chance of generalised violence in Kabul albeit that the chance of harm that was less than a ‘real chance’, but that nonetheless that ‘the foreseeable future may see some further deterioration of security in Kabul’ (the Kabul Security Deterioration Finding);

   i. at [57] that ‘unemployment is widespread in Kabul and underemployment is also common’ (the General Labour Market Finding);

   j. at [57] that ‘new arrivals [to Kabul] who lack a network of family contacts’ (such as the Applicant: see [59]) may find themselves ‘in a situation where employment is irregular and often insecure’ (the Insecure Employment Finding);

   k. at [58] that many parts of Kabul lack water, sanitation and reliable electricity, are affected by ‘high levels of air pollution’ (the Kabul Living Conditions Finding);

   l. at [58] that rents are expensive forcing new arrivals to Kabul ‘to borrow money to survive, entering a cycle of poverty and indebtedness’ (the Rent Finding).

2. Mr Jahnke of counsel on behalf of the applicant, in his written and oral submissions identified the findings made by the Authority in relation to risks and discrimination potentially faced by the applicant and contended that there was not a detailed consideration of all the circumstances of the kind required in determining whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate to Kabul.

3. Mr Jahnke relied upon what was said in MZANX v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 307 and particularly at [55] – [56] and [58]. Mr Jahnke contended in his submissions that by reason of the identified findings in respect of the chance of discrimination in employment, as well as the findings summarised in the particulars to ground 1 in the amended application, that the Authority had not in its reasons, engaged in the detailed consideration required to determine whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate.

4. Mr Jahnke submitted that there should have been a more detailed consideration in respect to the Islamic State and Kabul security deterioration, Shia Hazara employment discrimination, the foreigner discrimination, Iran suspicion, nepotism employment discrimination, liberal views discrimination, Kabul security deterioration, general labour market, insecure employment, Kabul living conditions, rent and westernisation. It is apparent from the Authority’s reasons as summarised above that each of the matters referred to were the subject of detailed consideration by the Authority in its consideration as to whether it was reasonable for the Applicant to relocate to Kabul. There is no proper basis to infer that the Authority did not take into account the whole of the circumstances in its determination of whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate to Kabul. The Authority’s reasons reflect a real and meaningful engagement with all the applicant’s circumstances in considering whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate to Kabul in accordance with s 36(2B) of the Act. 

5. Mr Jahnke submitted that the findings in relation to employment and capacities to subsist did not of themselves, identify whether or not it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate. The Authority’s reasons are not to be read with a keen eye for error. On the face of the Authority’s reasons, the Authority expressly took into account all of the applicant’s claims and evidence in its detailed consideration as to whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate. It is not necessary for the Authority to repeat each of its findings in its discussion of the reasonableness for relocation and the reasons must be read fairly and as a whole. There is no basis in the present case to infer that the Authority did not take into account the whole of the findings identified in determining whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate. No jurisdictional error of the kind alleged in ground 1 of the amended application is made out. 

6. As the amended application fails to make out any jurisdictional error, accordingly, the amended application is dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding fifty-one (51) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Date: 31 May 2019