DHZ17 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, DHZ17, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the refusal of a protection visa. The applicant, who claimed to fear harm in Jammu and Kashmir, India, had his claims of persecution accepted by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal found that he could safely relocate to another part of India, thereby refusing the visa.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the AAT had committed a jurisdictional error in its assessment of the applicant's ability to relocate within India. The applicant contended that the Tribunal's finding on internal relocation was flawed, constituting an unparticularised ground of review.

Judge Driver found that the AAT's reasoning regarding internal relocation, while perhaps not as detailed as the applicant might have wished, did not amount to jurisdictional error. The Tribunal had considered the evidence and made a finding that the applicant could relocate to a place of safety within India. This finding was open to the Tribunal on the evidence before it, and the applicant had not demonstrated that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction or acted outside its legal authority.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.