CPE15 v Minister for Immigration
[2016] FCCA 2388
•28 September 2016
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| CPE15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2016] FCCA 2388 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Application for judicial review of AAT decision – whether Tribunal made finding as to applicant’s “home region” – whether Tribunal failed to consider possible persecution throughout Afghanistan – whether Tribunal failed adequately to consider applicant’s fear of harm as member of a particular social group – grounds not made out – application dismissed. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958, s.36(2)(aa) |
| Cases cited: SZATV v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (2007) 233 CLR 18 SZQPY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCA 1133 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS (2013) 230 FCR 431 Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] AC 426 |
| Applicant: | CPE15 |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | MLG 2675 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Burchardt |
| Hearing date: | 10 August 2016 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 10 August 2016 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 28 September 2016 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms Latif |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Victoria Legal Aid |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Mr Hill |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | DLA Piper Australia |
ORDERS
The Amended Application filed 13 July 2016 is dismissed.
The Applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the proceeding fixed in the sum of $6,825.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 2675 of 2015
| CPE15 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introductory
By an amended application filed on 13 July 2016, the applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated 27 October 2015. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
There are two grounds of review. The first is that the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error by failing to consider and apply legal principles relating to the identification of a home region or safe area for the applicant in Afghanistan. The second asserted error is a failure to consider the applicant’s claim or integer of claim that he would be persecuted by reason of his membership of a particular social group constituted by failed Hazara asylum seekers with no family network to fall back on.
For the reasons that follow, I do not think that either ground is made out and it follows that the application will be dismissed.
Materials in the Court Book
Where, as here, it is submitted that the Tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error in the way in which it dealt with matters that turned at least in part on the actual evidence before it, it is appropriate to commence by seeing what the Tribunal indeed was considering. This includes the materials in the Court Book (“CB”) and the additional materials filed with the affidavit of Rehana Naz Chowdhry affirmed 13 July 2016.
In the biodata material annexed to Ms Chowdhry’s affidavit at page 2, the applicant’s most recent address is given in Quetta in Pakistan and at page 3, the applicant affirmed that he was seeking protection “Because, there is no security in Pakistan and there is nothing in Afghanistan”.
In his irregular maritime arrival interview, the applicant again gave his most recent address from 2007 to 2012 as in Quetta but confirmed that from 1993 till 2006, he lived in Kabul. In part (c) under the heading Reason to Leave, the applicant relevantly asserted:
“Afghanistan:
My mother passed away and there was no one to look after my brother and I so my maternal uncle took us to Pakistan to be looked after.
Pakistan:
Due to the security situation is (sic) Pakistan that is why I left.
Q: Is your life in danger? A: Yes.
Q: How? A: Because Hazara people’s lives are in danger in Pakistan, they are being killed, my life was in danger, that is why I left.
Q: Did you ever receive any specific threats? A: Not directly myself.
Q: Are there any other reasons why you left Pakistan? A: No other specific reason but because my life was in danger, that is all.”
Later in the document at paragraph 18, the question was:
“What do you think will happen to you if you return to your country of nationality (residence)?”
The answer was:
“Still my life is in danger and no one can guarantee my safety, there are religious and ethnic problems.
Q: What religious and ethnic problems are you referring to? A: For instance we cannot move between provinces, as your (sic) aware they have been shot tortured and killed. There also has been lots of suicide bombers between religious factions.”
The applicant appended a statutory declaration to his application for a protection visa. It is at CB55-58. He deposed that he was afraid to return to Afghanistan. He gave the history of his family including a family dispute over land and an estrangement between the applicant’s family and that of his uncle. He deposed to the disappearance of his father following abduction by the Taliban in about 1999 or 2000.
He further deposed to the death of his mother in 2007 and his going to Quetta thereafter with the assistance of his mother’s brother. He referred in general terms to instances of torture and killing of Shia Hazaras by the Taliban and other anti-Shia Hazara elements. He asserted:
“It is not safe for Hazaras in Afghanistan.”
At CB57, the applicant deposed that he feared being abducted, tortured and killed by the Taliban if he were to return to Afghanistan and/or harmed by them. Under the heading “WHY I THINK I WILL BE HARMED / MISTREATED IF I RETURN TO THAT COUNTRY”, the applicant deposed:
“17. I fear I will be harmed/mistreated for the reasons of my race: I am Hazara.
18. I feel that I will be harmed/mistreated for reasons of my religion: I am Shia.
19. I will be harmed because I am a member of the Particular Social Group: Shia Hazara with no family or tribal connections in Afghanistan.
20. Also, as an ethnic Hazara, I am viewed as being politically opposed to the Taliban.”
The applicant went on to depose to an absence of State protection in Afghanistan.
On 6 December 2013, the applicant’s migration agent wrote to the officer of the first respondent having conduct of the matter. The letter is at CB83-93. This followed a visa interview on 26 November 2013 and addressed the question of relocation. At paragraphs 2- 4, relevantly the letter asserted at CB83-84:
“2. The question at hand is whether it is reasonable for the applicant to relocate to a region in Afghanistan where, objectively, there is no appreciable risk of the occurrence of a feared persecution. In assessing relocation, the most important consideration is whether relocation is considered reasonable – “reasonable in the sense of practicable”.
(SZATV v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (2007) HCA 40 was footnoted).
“3. Assessments of reasonableness involve the consideration of the particular circumstances of the applicant and any impact that relocation would have on the applicant’s circumstances. These issues have been addressed below.
4. It is noted that relocation within Afghanistan is not reasonable in the applicant’s personal circumstances for the following reasons:
a. his employment experience;
b. familial circumstances;
c. his lack of family members for a support network in Afghanistan;
d. his lack of time spent in Afghanistan;
e. his Hazara ethnicity and accent; and
f. his Shia religion.”
Each of these matters was then addressed in more detail. Relevantly, at CB85 reference was made to the absence of any kind of family contacts in Afghanistan including a maternal aunt who lived in Kabul from whom the applicant had not heard for a long time.
At paragraph 18, CB87, the matter was perhaps effectively summarised as:
“The applicant is an 18 year-old-male, who has resided in Pakistan since he was approximately 12 years old. Since his departure from Afghanistan, the applicant has not returned to Afghanistan. The applicant has no social or familial connections within the community and in particular Kabul.”
The delegate’s decision is at CB101-114. The delegate relevantly found at CB106, having observed that the applicant appeared to be a credible witness regarding his identity and places he has resided in.
“Also he stated in claims in his interview with his representative that he had no remaining relatives in Afghanistan other than his estranged uncle, however at his interview it was discovered he had a maternal aunt and cousins residing nearby in Karte-Seh. He claimed he had little contact with his aunt. All the same he has not claimed to have been subjected to any mistreatment or persecution in Afghanistan and Pakistan and his main concern is related to what may happen if he were to return to Afghanistan. I do not believe he has been subjected to serious mistreatment causing his life to be placed in danger.”
The delegate went on to deal with the question of social group and observed at CB107, having noted the applicant’s claim to fear persecution on the basis of membership of a particular social group (PSG) as “a Hazara Shia with no family or tribal connections in Afghanistan”. “The applicant does have family and tribal connections in Karte-Seh, Kabul and as such I do not accept the PSG ground: a Hazara Shia with no family or tribal connections in Afghanistan.”
Having referred to country information dealing with the circumstances of Hazaras, and perhaps particularly in Kabul, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a person to whom Australia owed either Convention obligations or protection obligations pursuant to the complementary protection regime in s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958. At CB112, the delegate found:
“The applicant’s representative provided an extensive submission regarding problems relating to relocating to Kabul; however I do not believe this is relevant as the applicant is able to return to his home in Karte-Seh which is a Hazara Shia area of Kabul. While he is young, he will be able to revisit family (aunt and cousins) and tribal ties already established there by his parents in the past. He has skills which will enable him to establish a livelihood. He has not experienced any harm at the hands of the Taliban or anti-Shia groups while living there prior to leaving and residing in Pakistan and is not likely to face any problems on return.”
The applicant applied for review to the Tribunal and his migration agent wrote to the Tribunal on 19 October 2015. The letter is at CB155-176. Much of the written submission deals with country information and the security position in Afghanistan more generally. The material also traversed economic circumstances in Kabul generally and the difficulties facing internally displaced persons in Afghanistan. It should be noted that paragraph 49, CB163 asserts:
“The applicant fears that he will face serious harm if returned to Afghanistan on account of his membership of a particular social group “Failed Hazara Asylum Seekers who have fled to the West.””
It was also noted at paragraph 52, “Where a failed Afghan asylum seeker is rejected by their family or former community, reintegration, albeit in the context of relocation, was found to be almost impossible.”
So the submission asserted that it would be unreasonable for the applicant to remain in Kabul (in the context of relocation).
The Tribunal’s Decision
At CB192, the Tribunal set out the application for review and the relevant law. No criticism has been advanced of these aspects of the decision. The Tribunal went on to deal with the claims and evidence at CB192-198.
The recitation of the applicant’s case at paragraphs 20-24 (CB192-193) seems to me to accord with the material to which I have referred above.
At paragraph 26, CB193, the Tribunal accepted the applicant’s evidence about the land dispute between his family and his uncle but found that, “these events all occurred a very long time ago when the applicant was a young child and the uncle and his family members did not seek to harm the applicant or his other family members when they lived in Afghanistan until 2007. In all the circumstances, I find that the chance or risk that they would attempt to do so in the reasonably foreseeable future is remote.”
The Tribunal then considered the applicant’s claims as a Hazara Shia and found, putting the matter shortly, that the applicant simply as a Shia Hazara did not face any of the forms of risk that he had asserted. The matter is summarised at paragraph 37 (CB195) as:
“I accept that there have been some incidents where Hazara Shias have been targeted, and where ethnicity and religion would appear to be a factor and that ISIS have started operating in Afghanistan. However, I do not accept that all Hazara Shias in Kabul face a real chance of persecution or significant harm now or in the reasonably foreseeable future from these Sunni groups or anyone else. I accept that the applicant is a Shia and will attend mosque and religious events; however, given the country information viewed overall, I find that the chance or risk he will be seriously harmed or significantly harmed is remote.”
It is clear that the Tribunal was considering the applicant’s case in the context of a return to Kabul. At paragraph 39 and following, CB196 - 197, the Tribunal said:
“39. DFAT have commented that Kabul’s size and diversity means that there are large communities of almost all ethnic, linguistic and religious groups in the city and that returnees are unlikely to be discriminated against or subjected to violence on account of their ethnicity or religion. They have commented that there are many Shia mosques in the city. This information suggests that there is a large Hazara Shia community which the applicant can reintegrate into. I note that DFAT have commented that men of working age are more likely to be able to return and reintegrate successfully than unaccompanied women and children, provided that they are able to make use of family or tribal networks. I accept that the applicant has an aunt and cousins in Kabul and that he has not had recent contact with any of them. However, the applicant is a single male of working age with no family to support and has five years’ experience in rug making which will assist him in being able to find work and support himself. I have taken into account that the applicant has been diagnosed by a psychologist (see the letter of 27 August 2015) as having experienced significant depressive and anxiety and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms following an attack on him at his workplace here in Australia. The applicant showed me a major scar on his stomach and given his general credibility, I accept that he has problems lifting heavy items.
40. I have considered carefully and taken into account all the information contained in the agent’s submissions and in DFAT’s recent report on Conditions in Kabul including the information that unemployment is widespread and underemployment is common, it has a relatively high cost of living particularly for housing and that it is one of the poorest cities in the world. Basic public health care is free though medicines are not which excludes the poor for treatment for common illnesses. Medical facilities in the public system whilst basic tend to be better in Kabul than in other areas of Afghanistan. I accept that the applicant in his individual circumstances faces a real risk of being unemployed and being unable to subsist or to obtain accommodation. I accept that he will face difficulties obtaining medicines or more than basic health care and that (he) will face difficulties with access to proper utilities such as access to electricity, water and sanitation. However, the country information concerning Afghanistan is that it is an extremely poor country and that large parts of Kabul are extremely poor. The country information, viewed as a whole, does not indicate that any of the problems he faces will be due to any systematic and discriminatory conduct by any actor as required by s.91R(1)(c) of the Act but will rather be due to his individual circumstances and the poor economic situation, government services and infrastructure that belie the city and the nation. Furthermore, the country information viewed as a whole, indicates that he does not face a real risk of being arbitrarily deprived of his life, having the death penalty carried out on him or being subjected to torture. It does not establish that the problems he faces will be as a result of any intentional act or omission so as to constitute either cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, considering the country information and his individual circumstances, I find that the problems he faces upon return do not constitute significant harm under section 36(2B)(c) of the Act as they are faced by the population of the country generally and not by him personally.
41. I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance or real risk of serious harm or significant harm in Kabul on account of his membership of a particular social group of failed Hazara asylum seekers who have fled to the West. There is no recent information before me that returnees or failed asylum seekers or those who have spent time outside Afghanistan have been seriously or significantly harmed in Kabul. DFAT have stated that because of Kabul’s size and diversity returnees are unlikely to be discriminated against or subjected to violence on the basis of ethnicity or religion. Whilst DFAT say there (sic) are aware of occasional reports of returnees from western countries alleging that they have been kidnapped or otherwise targeted on the basis of having spent time in a western country they assess that in general, returnees from western countries are not specifically targeted on the basis of their being failed asylum seekers.
42. I have taken into account that the applicant lived in Pakistan from 2007-2012. However, I note that the applicant spent the first 14 or so years of his life living in Kabul and would have a substantial degree of familiarity with the city and Afghan life. Moreover, country information indicates that large numbers of Afghans have returned to Pakistan in recent years and whilst they may spend long periods of time in temporary accommodation in camps with limited infrastructure and economic opportunities, the available country information does not indicate that they are being seriously or significantly harmed.”
At paragraph 43, the Tribunal considered:
“43.…However, the applicant in this case has not lived outside Kabul anywhere in Afghanistan and has no family in the rest of the country. His family no longer owns land in Parwan province. Kabul has better economic opportunities than the rest of the country and the applicant (who has skills in rug making) has not claimed that he would face better economic opportunities outside Kabul. He has an uncle and adult brother in Quetta, Pakistan but his mother is deceased and his father is missing and he has no wife and children. In these circumstances, I find it is reasonable that the applicant remain in Kabul to re-establish his life and to seek employment.
44. Having regard to the country information concerning the overall situation for Hazara Shias and failed returned asylum seekers from western countries and the country information that indicates that the Government maintains effective control of Kabul and the applicant’s individual circumstances, I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution in the reasonably foreseeable future in Kabul on account of being a Hazara Shia or an imputed political opinion or for membership of a particular social groups consisting of “failed Hazara asylum seekers who have fled to the West” or “Shia Hazaras with no family or tribal connections in Afghanistan” at the hands of the Taliban, ISIS, other insurgent groups, the state or anybody else.”
The Tribunal went on to dismiss the claim both under the Convention and under the complementary protection regime.
The Applicant’s Written and Oral Submissions
Having set out background matters, in terms relatively consistent with what I have set out myself above, the applicant’s contentions of law commence, in effect, at page 7 of his Contentions of Fact and Law, filed on 13 July 2016. The matter is perhaps summarised in relation to ground 1 at paragraphs 21 to 22 as follows:
“Contrary to the applicant’s evidence and argument, the Tribunal determined the application for review by considering the extent to which the applicant faced a “real chance” of serious harm or “real risk” of significant harm in Kabul, and not by reference to the whole of Afghanistan. The Tribunal did not consider whether, if the applicant were to return to Kabul, he would in fact be relocating from Quetta, his place of former habitual residence. Ground One challenges the lawfulness of this approach.
The applicant submits in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was obliged to determine, as a preliminary matter, whether the applicant had a “home area” or “home region”, and, if so, what that home area was: compare SZQPY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCA 1133 (SZQPY) at [79] per Kenny J.
The submissions went on to assert (paragraph 24) that, “The applicant submits the Tribunal’s failure to identify and address the home region issue raised on the materials reveals of jurisdictional error…”
The written submissions went on to deal with ground 2 at paragraphs 25-27. At paragraph 27 the written submissions assert:
“The Tribunal failed to consider this claim adequately or at all. Furthermore, the IDP Claim was directly relevant to the Tribunal’s findings at [39] and [40], and may have been dispositive insofar as it tended to show failed asylum seekers are unable to reintegrate into Afghani society and are equivalent to IDPs, who are, in turn, more vulnerable than the “non-displaced urban poor” and “particularly affected by unemployment, limited access to adequate housing, limited access to water and sanitation, and food and insecurity.”
It should be noted that the particular social group articulated in ground 2 in the amended application is a social group “constituted by failed Hazara asylum seekers with no family network to fall back on”.
The written submissions earlier assert however at paragraph 13 that the particular social group to which the applicant belonged was the equivalent of an internally displaced person
sand therefore the criticism is made that the Tribunal failed to consider this issue.In oral submissions, counsel for the applicant emphasised that the applicant’s claim was a fear of persecution throughout the whole of Afghanistan. The Tribunal, it was submitted, failed to deal with the home region issue that the applicant had raised and submitted that relocation is a different matter.
Counsel placed particular emphasis on the decision of Kenny J in SZQPY at [79]-[82]. It is certainly the case that in that matter, Kenny J was critical of the failure of the Tribunal which had stated, “Barua Buddhists did not face a real chance of persecution in the Chittagong area…” in circumstances where the applicant’s primary claim was that he had a well-founded fear of persecution as part of the Buddhist minority in Bangladesh.
This claim covered the whole of Bangladesh and the Tribunal failed to make any finding that Chittagong was the appellant’s home area, nor did the Tribunal in that case make any other finding as to the appellant’s home area or lack of one. Her Honour said, at [79]-[80]:
“The Tribunal therefore failed to find that the appellant was not a person to whom Australia owed obligations “in definitive terms”, either because he would be “safe” in the relevant sense in a “home area” or “throughout the country”. In this way, the finding as to Barua Buddhists in the Chittagong area was incomplete and, as such, unable to provide an independent basis for the Tribunal’s decision.
Had the Tribunal found that the appellant did not face a real chance of harm in Bangladesh as a whole or in his home region, then such a finding or findings would have provided a complete basis for a decision that the appellant was not a person to whom Australia owed protection under the Refugees Convention.
In respect of ground 2, counsel expanded upon the written submissions. She placed particular reliance on the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS (2013) 230 FCR 431. It was strongly submitted that the Tribunal simply failed to deal with the client’s integer of his claim, being his lack of family and support.
The Submissions of the First Respondent
The first respondent’s written submissions, contained a summary at paragraph 2:
“2.1 The Tribunal did consider the Applicant’s “home region”, and found that his home region was Kabul. That was a finding of fact, and fully supported by the material before the Tribunal.
2.2 The Tribunal did consider the applicant’s claim to fear persecution as a “Failed Hazara Asylum seeker who has fled to the West”, and rejected it. The Tribunal also considered the underlying factual claims that the position of the Applicant was analogous to an internally-displaced person. The Tribunal correctly rejected the legal analogy with an internally displaced person. The Tribunal held further that the factual claims did not establish persecution under the Refugees Convention, nor significant harm for the purposes of complementary protection.
At paragraph 31, the written submissions take issue with the argument about relocation from Quetta advanced by the applicant. The written submissions refer to SZATV v Minister for Immigration (2007) 233 CLR 18 at [19] by Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ which cited Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] AC 426 at [440] per Lord Bingham as follows:
The [Refugee Convention] does not expressly address the situation at issue in these appeals where, within the country of his nationality, a person has a well-founded fear of persecution at place A, where he lived, but not at place B, where (it is said) he could reasonably be expected to relocate. But the situation may fairly be said to be covered by the causative condition to which reference has been made: for if a person is outside the country of his nationality because he has chosen to leave that country and seek asylum in a foreign country, rather than move to a place of relocation within his own country where he could have no well-founded fear of persecution, where the protection of his country would be available to him and where he could reasonably be expected to relocate, it can properly be said that he is not outside the country of his nationality owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for a Convention reason.”
It was thus submitted that “the relocation principle only concerns relocation within a person’s country of nationality.”
The written submission went on to assert how, on the materials, that the Tribunal had found the applicant’s home region to be Kabul. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not lived anywhere in Afghanistan other than Kabul, did not have family in the rest of the country and that his family no longer owned land in Parwan province.
Insofar as ground 2 was concerned, it was submitted that the Tribunal did deal with the applicant’s asserted fear of persecution as a member of a particular social group, namely “failed Hazara asylum seekers who have fled to the West”. It was also submitted that the Tribunal did address each of the difficulties that the applicant’s agent’s submission said the applicant, by analogy with the position of IDPs, might face.
In oral submissions, counsel emphasised that if there was no persecution in the applicant’s home region it was not necessary to consider the rest of the country. Counsel submitted that the applicant’s own submissions, at paragraphs 58-60 (CB165) effectively posited Kabul as the applicant’s home region. It was submitted that the Tribunal was aware of the applicant’s history (paragraph 42, CB197) and clearly assessed his home base. Counsel pointed to the phrase in paragraph 43 “This case is relevant as it discusses the reasonableness of expecting the applicant to remain in Kabul…”
In respect of ground 2, the essential point taken by the first respondent was that the applicant’s submissions had themselves (see paragraphs 52-53, CB163 to 164) put the question of social group very much in the context of the unreasonableness of relocation, not the question of being a member of a particular social group. It was submitted that the Tribunal had, in paragraph 39 (CB161), addressed the applicant’s particular circumstances and made a finding. It was submitted that the test is not whether it is reasonable for the applicant to return to Kabul, but whether he faced persecution if he did.
Consideration
Although it has taken some time to get here, my conclusions can be expressed briefly. The sort of grounds relied on by the applicant in this case give rise to an evaluative judgment by the Court which is, in truth, not really susceptible of lengthy recitation. Either the Court thinks the asserted errors are made out and amount to jurisdictional error or not.
In respect of ground 1, I think that the Tribunal’s decision, when read fairly and as a whole, did indeed ultimately and properly proceed on the footing that Kabul was the applicant’s home region. As counsel for the first respondent’s submitted, the applicant’s own written submissions to the Tribunal proceeded, in effect, on this footing. The Tribunal’s reference to assessing the reasonableness of the applicant remaining in Kabul, shows that it was contemplating this as his home region. This was, in the ultimate, in my view, as the first respondent submits, a finding of fact and one open to the Tribunal in the particular circumstances.
It is, of course, true that the Tribunal did not expressly consider the applicant’s safety throughout the whole of Afghanistan, but if it found, as it did, that the applicant’s home region was safe then there was no need to do this.
In respect of ground 2, the matter is made more difficult by the way in which the applicant’s submissions mix up two theoretically different considerations. The social group, which the applicant asserted as giving rise to his fear of persecution, was that of “Failed Hazara Asylum Seekers who have fled to the West” (paragraph 49, CB163). The Tribunal undoubtedly did assess that claim and made an express finding (at paragraph 41, CB197):
“I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance or real risk of serious harm or significant harm in Kabul on account his membership of a particular social group of failed Hazara asylum seekers who have fled to the West.”
The Tribunal gave cogent reasons in support (see the rest of paragraph 41).
Although the applicant’s representative did raise the difficulties faced by IDPs in the relocation context, the Tribunal, in my view, sufficiently addressed those matters as well in its general remarks at paragraphs 39-40 (CB196-197), which I have set out above.
Conclusion
In all the circumstances, the applicant’s claims are not made out and the application must be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding forty-nine (49) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Burchardt
Date: 28 September 2016
3
2