CMV18 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, CMV18, sought review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration that refused to grant him a protection visa. CMV18 claimed a fear of harm in Afghanistan, and while his claims were accepted, the Immigration Assessment Authority found that he could relocate to Mazar-e-Sharif. The case was heard by Judge Driver in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Immigration Assessment Authority erred in its consideration of the reasonableness of internal relocation for the applicant. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the Authority had failed to adequately engage with the applicant's submissions regarding the practical and realistic ability of an individual to relocate and re-establish themselves without undue hardship.

Judge Driver reasoned that the assessment of relocation reasonableness requires a fact-intensive analysis that considers the particular circumstances of the applicant, including their personal strengths, weaknesses, skills, and support networks. The Court held that general statements or broad assumptions are insufficient, and a decision-maker must carefully regard the relevant material and the issues raised by the applicant. The Authority's reasoning was found to be at too high a level of abstraction, making bold and broad assumptions about what level of scarcity and meagreness was practicable and reasonable for the applicant to endure. This failure to conduct a detailed, factually grounded assessment constituted jurisdictional error.

The Court found that the applicant had succeeded in establishing that the decision of the Authority was affected by jurisdictional error. Accordingly, orders in the nature of certiorari and mandamus were to be made, and the parties were to be heard as to costs.