DWN027 v The Republic of Nauru

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal as of right from the Supreme Court of Nauru concerning a refugee status determination. The appellant, a Pakistani national, sought recognition as a refugee or complementary protection from Nauru. The Secretary of the Department of Justice and Border Control had rejected the appellant's application, a decision affirmed by the Refugee Status Review Tribunal and subsequently by the Supreme Court of Nauru. The appellant's claim was based on a well-founded fear of persecution by the Taliban due to his actual or imputed political opinion, stemming from past incidents involving his brothers and a bomb blast near his family's business.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the Refugee Status Review Tribunal erred in applying a "reasonable relocation" test to the appellant's claim for complementary protection, and whether the Tribunal failed to consider Nauru's international obligation to give primary consideration to the best interests of the appellant's child when assessing the possibility of internal relocation within Pakistan. The appellant also argued that the Tribunal failed to consider his objection that any relocation within Pakistan would compel him to return to the original area of persecution.

The Court reasoned that the appellant had not raised the issue of the best interests of his child before the Tribunal, nor had he adduced persuasive evidence that his child's interests would be adversely affected by the refusal of his claim. The Court emphasised that while tribunals have an inquisitorial role, they are generally bound to respond to the case articulated by the applicant, and the obligation to investigate unarticulated claims is confined to those apparent on the face of the material. Consequently, the Court refused leave to adduce an additional document and refused leave to amend the notice of appeal.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the Tribunal had not erred in applying a reasonable internal relocation test to the appellant's claim for complementary protection, nor had it failed to take into account the interests of the appellant's child, as these matters were not properly raised or evidenced before the Tribunal.