BGQ16 v Minister for Immigration

This matter came before Dowdy J concerning an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) which affirmed a delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant had previously had his case remitted back to the RRT for redetermination after an earlier decision was quashed by the Court. At the subsequent hearing, the applicant presented further evidence and arguments, which the RRT considered alongside his previous statements and evidence. The RRT noted inconsistencies and differences in the applicant's accounts of his claims.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the RRT erred in its assessment of the applicant's claims and its subsequent decision to refuse the protection visa. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether the RRT's findings regarding the applicant's credibility, the reasons for his departure from Lebanon, and the reasonableness of internal relocation were legally sound. The RRT had rejected most of the applicant's specific claims, finding his account "highly dubious and lacking in credibility."

Dowdy J's reasoning focused on the RRT's findings of fact and its application of the relevant legislative provisions. While the RRT accepted that the applicant resided in Bab Al-Tabbaneh and that Sunnis in that area faced a moderate risk of violence, it ultimately concluded that it would be reasonable and practicable for the applicant to relocate to another part of Tripoli or Lebanon to avoid harm. The RRT was satisfied that there was no real chance the applicant would face serious harm for a Convention reason if he internally relocated, and therefore, his fear of persecution was not well-founded. The Court noted that under s.36(2B)(a) of the Act, a non-citizen is taken not to be at real risk of significant harm if it is reasonable for them to relocate to an area where such a risk does not exist.

The Court ultimately found that the RRT had made substantial grounds for believing there was a real risk the applicant would suffer significant harm in his home area. However, applying s.36(2B)(a) of the Act, the RRT was satisfied that it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate internally, and therefore, there was no real risk of significant harm. The application for review was dismissed.