BWB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

This appeal concerns the decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (Authority) affirming the delegate’s decision to refuse the appellant’s application for a protection visa. The appellant, a citizen of Afghanistan, applied for a protection visa on the basis of a fear of harm on account of being a Hazara and a Shia Muslim. The Authority upheld the delegate’s decision, concluding that the appellant did not face a real risk of significant harm if he relocated within Afghanistan, and thus did not meet the requirements of s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The appellant appealed to the Federal Circuit Court, arguing that the Authority had not properly assessed the reasonableness of relocating within Afghanistan, specifically whether it was reasonable to expect him to live apart from his family. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Authority had appropriately assessed the reasonableness of relocation, taking into account the appellant’s circumstances. The appellant now appeals to this Court, challenging the Federal Circuit Court’s decision on the basis that it erred in concluding that the Authority had properly assessed the reasonableness of relocation. The central issue for determination is whether the Authority had erred in applying s 36(2B) of the Act when concluding that it would be reasonable for the appellant to relocate within Afghanistan.

This Court has considered the Authority’s reasons and is satisfied that it had properly assessed the reasonableness of relocation within Afghanistan. The Authority found that the appellant had previously demonstrated an ability to live apart from his family, having done so for extended periods in Iran, Kabul, and Australia. The Authority also noted that the appellant had no family or other connections in Mazar-e-Sharif and would face a real risk of serious harm if he travelled to his home area of Jaghori. The Authority concluded that it would be reasonable for the appellant to relocate to Mazar-e-Sharif given his life experiences, skills, and resilience. The Authority’s assessment of the reasonableness of relocation took into account the appellant’s circumstances, including his lack of family and communal support in Mazar-e-Sharif. The Authority found that, while the appellant was concerned for the wellbeing of his family, he had demonstrated a capacity to live apart from them for an extended period. The Authority did not err in concluding that it would be reasonable for the appellant to relocate within Afghanistan. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or taxed.