DZACC v Minister for Immigration
[2012] FMCA 314
•20 April 2012
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| DZACC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2012] FMCA 314 |
| MIGRATION – Persecution – review of recommendation made by independent merits reviewer (“Reviewer”) that the applicant not be recognised as a person to whom Australia has protection obligations. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Allegation that the Reviewer failed to identify the real reason for the persecution allegedly feared by the applicant, denied the applicant procedural fairness by not providing adverse information to him, incorrectly identified the particular social group of which he was a member, failed properly to consider the availability of state protection and the reasonable practicability of relocation. |
| Migration Act 1958, ss.36, 46A, 91R, 195A |
| Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia; Plaintiff M69/2010 v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 243 CLR 319 SZFZN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 1153 Okere v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1998) 87 FCR 112 SZQKC v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2012] FCA 249 Applicant S v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2004) 217 CLR 387 SZMCD v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (2009) 174 FCR 415 |
| Applicant: | DZACC |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REA HEARN MACKINNON IN HER CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER |
| File Number: | DNG 64 of 2011 |
| Judgment of: | Cameron FM |
| Hearing date: | 4 April 2012 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 4 April 2012 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney (by video link to Darwin) |
| Delivered on: | 20 April 2012 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms N. Karapanagiotidis |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Mr T. Anderson |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The application be dismissed.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN |
DNG 64 of 2011
| DZACC |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REA HEARN MACKINNON IN HER CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan who arrived at Christmas Island by boat on 15 March 2010. He lodged an application for a Refugee Status Assessment (“RSA”) dated 29 May 2010 alleging that he was a refugee and, as such, a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 as amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1967 (“Convention”).
By letter dated 23 June 2010 an officer in the department administered by the first respondent (“Minister”) advised the applicant that he had been assessed as not meeting the definition of a “refugee” under the Convention. That decision was subsequently reviewed by the second respondent (“Reviewer”) who, on 20 May 2011, recommended that the applicant not be recognised as a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention. It can be presumed that the applicant was in detention at the time of the RSA assessment and subsequent review.
The evidence makes it clear that the applicant had no visa when he entered Australia at Christmas Island. In the circumstances and as provided by s.46A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (“Act”), he cannot make a valid application for a protection visa. However, ss.46A and 195A of the Act provide that the Minister may, in his discretion, lift the bar on the applicant making such an application and may grant him a visa.
It was an unstated assumption in these proceedings that the Minister would consider exercising his ss.46A and 195A discretions in favour of the applicant if he received advice to that effect, advice which would be based on the recommendation of the Reviewer: see Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia; Plaintiff M69/2010 v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 243 CLR 319 at 344 [49].
The applicant has applied to this Court for judicial review of the Reviewer’s recommendation. Together with other relief, he seeks a declaration that the Reviewer’s recommendation is affected by legal error and an injunction restraining the Minister from relying on that recommendation. In order to succeed he must demonstrate that the Reviewer’s review was procedurally unfair or was not conducted by reference to the correct legal principles correctly applied.
For the reasons which follow, the application will be dismissed.
Background facts
The recommendation made by the Reviewer was supported by written reasons. The facts alleged in support of the applicant’s claim for protection were set out in paras.7 to 22 of those reasons and are relevantly summarised below.
The applicant was born in Lalamusa in Gujrat district in the Pakistani province of Punjab. In his entry interview and in a statement dated 29 May 2010 in support of his RSA, the applicant claimed that in 2005 he converted from Sunni Islam to Shia Islam after falling in love with a Shia girl. He claimed that as his conversion was unacceptable to his family, he was badly beaten by his brothers. He also claimed that people in his community isolated him and threatened to kill him. He claimed that his family and community would harm him if he returned to Pakistan and that it was not safe for him anywhere else in Pakistan because of the insecurity and because he had converted to Shia Islam.
Proceedings before the Reviewer
The applicant was interviewed by the Reviewer on 10 December 2010 at which point he made the following claims:
a)on his way to Australia some people on the boat advised him to say that he had changed his religion because his case was a private one and he needed to prepare a religious or ethnic case. He was very distressed at the time and followed their advice. He decided to tell the truth ten or fifteen days after his RSA application was rejected but he did not tell his migration agent until immediately before his interview with the Reviewer;
b)in 2000 he started his own wholesale clothing business and opened a shop two years later;
c)in 2003 a Shia girl came to his shop and they became friends and began to write letters to each other. She came to the shop five or six times a month, usually with someone else but once or twice on her own;
d)in 2005 her brother found out about their friendship and came to his shop with five other people. They beat him and took him to a house which housed about fifty or sixty men where he was detained for fifteen days. He was denied food and water, stripped naked and beaten again. He had the girl’s name tattooed on his arm but the tattoo was burnt off with a metal stamp held over fire;
e)he discovered that the girl’s uncle, Manzoor, was a Muslim League member of the National Assembly. Manzoor’s men were well known in the area for collecting taxes and beating people. The police were in his control and he had links to the military;
f)when his family was informed that he had been taken from his shop, they sought assistance from certain Muslim League members of the Punjabi Parliament. A delegation of ten people was sent to Manzoor to request his release. One of the members of parliament personally asked for his release. Manzoor agreed to release the applicant but said that if he was seen again he would be killed;
g)his family was angry with him;
h)he did not speak to the girl again after he was released and had no knowledge of her circumstances;
i)the caste system in Pakistan was very important and people could be killed because of it. The girl’s family were Shia from the Syed caste which was high in the social order while he was from the Shaik Quarishi caste which was a middle class caste. The girl’s family was not happy with his religion and his caste;
j)he did not go to the police after he was released because they would have beaten him or put him in gaol;
k)as a Punjabi he could not live in Karachi because of the difference in language and culture. After he was released he went to Karachi for forty or fifty days where he witnessed a bomb blast which killed fifty or sixty people and two other incidents of people being shot. He could not live in a place where people died every day;
l)he thought that Manzoor’s people would kill him one day and harm his family so he decided to leave Pakistan;
m)his family still lived in the same house but were warned every now and then and lived in fear; and
n)he believed Manzoor was killed in 2003 or 2004.
Reviewer’s findings and reasons
After discussing the claims made by the applicant and the evidence before her, the Reviewer found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa as set out in s.36(2) of the Act. The Reviewer consequently recommended that the applicant not be recognised as a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention. That recommendation was based on the following findings and reasons:
a)the Reviewer accepted the applicant’s evidence that the claims that he made in his RSA application were not true. She accepted that the claims the applicant made at their interview were true and consequently assessed his refugee status against the claims he made at that time;
b)the Reviewer accepted that the applicant came from the village of Lalamusa in Gujrat district in Punjab and that he was a Sunni Muslim. She accepted that he was from a middle class family and had his own clothing business. The Reviewer also accepted that the applicant formed a friendship with a Shia girl whom he met at his shop and that he was kidnapped by the girl’s relatives, detained for a number of days, beaten and otherwise assaulted;
c)the Reviewer accepted that the girl with whom the applicant was involved might have been related to a person from Lalamusa called Manzoor who on three occasions had been a Muslim League member of the National Assembly. The Reviewer also accepted that the relatives who kidnapped and assaulted the applicant had political connections and wielded a degree of power within the district at the time;
d)however, the Reviewer did not accept that the harm suffered by the applicant was for a Convention reason, finding that the reason for the harm was his relationship with the girl and, were it not for the relationship, no harm would have arisen. The Reviewer found that the applicant’s religion and caste, or both, may have been factors that rendered him unsuitable for the girl in the eyes of her relatives but that he was not targeted because of these characteristics. The Reviewer found that absent the relationship, the applicant would not have been of interest to the girl’s relatives and thus did not accept that the applicant was harmed because of his religion or his caste;
e)the Reviewer did not accept that the applicant was a member of any particular social group comprising young men who formed relationships with women of a different religion or higher caste or young men who formed relationships with women which were not approved of by the women’s families. In this regard, the Reviewer did not accept that these groups would be objectively identifiable in Pakistan or united by common characteristics, attributes, beliefs or interests. The Reviewer also noted that there were likely to be millions of such relationships in Pakistan and that the circumstances, community perception and acceptance of each relationship and the persons involved would be unique and vastly different;
f)the Reviewer did not accept that the applicant would be at risk of harm if he returned to Pakistan given that the nature of his relationship with the girl had been extremely limited. The Reviewer noted that the applicant had been away from Pakistan for six years, that he had no contact with the girl in that time or knowledge of her circumstances or whereabouts and that it had been over ten years since Manzoor had been a member of the National Assembly. The Reviewer found that as Manzoor had died, it was difficult to see how he would still exert any power or control in the district;
g)in relation to the issue of state protection, the Reviewer noted that as the applicant had not gone to the police, it was unknown whether he would have been denied protection. However, although the Reviewer accepted that if Manzoor had wielded power at a local level, including in relation to the police, the applicant may have believed that the police would not assist him, she found that any such failure of protection would have arisen because of Manzoor’s power in the district rather than because of the applicant’s religion or membership of a particular social group. The Reviewer noted that Manzoor was dead and that whilst his former party was still in power in Punjab, the applicant’s evidence that members of Manzoor’s party had negotiated his release indicated that he could access support in the district and was not likely to be denied effective protection for a Convention reason. The Reviewer also noted that country information indicated that the police in Pakistan lacked effectiveness and professionalism and that there were reports of human rights abuses and failures to protect religious minorities, together with a responsiveness to political interest and corruption, including in Punjab. However, the Reviewer found that as the applicant was not a member of a religious minority, he would not be discriminated against on that basis. In addition, she found that other concerns about the police affected all sections of Pakistani society and did not indicate that the applicant would be denied protection for a Convention reason; and
h)even though she did not accept that the applicant had a well-founded fear persecution for a Convention reason, the Reviewer considered whether the applicant could relocate and was satisfied that the harm he feared was specific and localised such that he could reasonably relocate to another part of Pakistan. The Reviewer noted that Punjab was Pakistan’s most populous province with a number of large cities and that, given the applicant was a member of Pakistan’s main ethnic group and its main religion as well as being educated and possessing a business background, there appeared to be no impediments to him moving to a different part of Punjab. The Reviewer also referred to information from the South Asia Terrorism Portal about the high level of insecurity in Pakistan and the presence of extremist groups perpetrating acts of terrorism as well as sectarian attacks primarily directed towards Shia and Ahmaddiya communities. She noted that the applicant was not a member of a minority religion or ethnic group and was thus not a target for sectarian extremists. The Reviewer found that whilst some parts of Punjab presented a greater risk of terrorist activity, this was not the case across the whole province and the applicant could reasonably relocate to another part of Punjab.
Proceedings in this Court
The grounds of the amended application were pleaded as follows:
1.The Second Respondent denied the applicant procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicant with adverse country information and/or an opportunity to comment upon adverse country information.
2.The Second Respondent erred in law in its consideration of whether the harm suffered by the applicant was Convention related.
3.The Second Respondent erred in its consideration of whether the applicant was a member of a particular social group.
4.The Second Respondent erred in its consideration of the availability of “state protection” and/or applied the wrong test.
5.The Second Respondent erred in its consideration of whether the applicant could reasonably relocate to another area of Pakistan.
Because of the significance of the second allegation to other grounds of the application, these reasons will deal with that allegation first.
Ground 2 – Whether harm suffered Convention-related
Applicant’s submissions
The applicant submitted that the Reviewer accepted his factual claims, including that he had been detained for fifteen days, tortured and seriously assaulted, but found that the harm he suffered was because of his relationship and not for a Convention reason. He submitted that the Reviewer erroneously adopted an approach whereby a finding that he was targeted because of his relationship was necessarily inconsistent with a finding that the girl’s relatives were also motivated by a desire to harm him for a Convention reason. The applicant submitted that the harm directed towards him may have been motivated by personal interest as well as a Convention-related reason and that the Reviewer’s approach failed to allow for this possibility.
The applicant submitted that s.91R of the Act did not exclude the possibility that a Convention reason might explain actions which were also taken for other motives, particularly in relation to persecution directed to members of a particular social group. He submitted that the Reviewer appeared to have accepted that the girl’s relatives objected to the relationship precisely because of his caste and religion (or particular social group).
The applicant submitted that the Reviewer asked herself the wrong questions and failed to appreciate that there might be multiple motivations for persecution.
Consideration
It can be accepted that an action can have more than one motivation and that a Convention nexus can be established if one of the grounds mentioned in the Convention is identified as amongst the motivations for conduct of a persecutory nature. The search is for the “real reason” for the persecution feared: SZFZN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 1153 at [16].
Although it might appear in this case that the Reviewer erroneously believed that she was confronted with a binary choice of the sort discussed in Okere v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1998) 87 FCR 112 at 118, I am not of the view that she did. In para.43 of her reasons the Reviewer relevantly said:
The claimant’s religion and caste or combination of both, may have been factors because they may have rendered him unsuitable for the girl in the eyes of her relatives, but he was not targeted by [the girl’s] relatives because of his religion or caste. He was targeted because her relatives objected to the relationship. Her relatives may have also objected to the relationship if the claimant was Shia or of a higher caste.
In that passage the Reviewer should be understood to have set out her consideration of whether the applicant’s personal characteristics had any bearing on the response of the girl’s family as well as her conclusion that they did not. The Reviewer found that it was the simple fact of the relationship, not objections to the applicant personally, which caused him to suffer the harm which was visited upon him. She therefore went on expressly to reject the applicant’s allegations that his mistreatment had been motivated for Convention reasons.
This was not a case of the Reviewer erecting a false dichotomy or failing to take into account multiple motivations for particular conduct. In this case the Reviewer considered what the applicant alleged had been the motivation for his mistreatment and did not accept it, finding instead that the conduct had been motivated for a reason which was not Convention-related. This was a conclusion which was open to her in the circumstances.
The second allegation in the amended application does not disclose error on the Reviewer’s part.
Ground 1 – Failure to provide adverse country information
Applicant’s submissions
The applicant submitted that the Reviewer relied on country information concerning the practices and effectiveness of the Pakistani police which she had not put to him. In particular, the applicant submitted that the Reviewer relied on particular “reports of failure to protect religious minorities, human rights abuses, responsiveness to political interests and corruption” to conclude that as he was not a member of a religious minority he would not be discriminated against by the police.
The applicant submitted that the country information referred to and relied upon by the Reviewer was credible, relevant and significant. He submitted that the Reviewer failed to raise this issue or the material with him. The applicant submitted that the only time that the issue of state protection was raised at the hearing was when the Reviewer asked him if he had reported the assault to the police. The applicant submitted that it was incumbent on the Reviewer to invite him to comment on the adverse information and that the failure to do so constituted a denial of procedural fairness.
The Minister conceded that the Reviewer had not supplied the applicant with the country information referred to in this allegation.
Consideration
As noted above, the Reviewer concluded in para.43 of her reasons that the harm the applicant had suffered in the past was not Convention-related. She went on to elaborate on that finding in para.45 of her reasons where she said that she did not accept that the harm the applicant said he feared was Convention-related. Indeed, quite apart from her assessment of the applicant’s claimed subjective fear, she said in para.44 of her reasons that she did not accept that the applicant was actually at risk of harm if he returned to Pakistan. That is to say, the Reviewer rejected both the subjective and objective elements of the applicant’s claim.
Consequently, even if the Reviewer had found that the applicant would have been denied state protection for persecutory reasons had he sought it, there was no potential harm of the sort he claimed to fear against which he needed protection. In such circumstances, the Reviewer’s consideration of the availability of state protection, or more particularly whether the applicant would be denied state protection for persecutory reasons, was otiose: SZQKC v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2012] FCA 249.
However, if I am wrong in this conclusion, the information in question was nevertheless not material adverse to the applicant’s claims which had to be provided to him. Relevantly, the country information concerning the Pakistani police cited by the Reviewer in that part of her reasons under the heading “Findings and Reasons” referred to matters in respect of which the applicant made no claim, such as persecution of religious minorities, or to matters which were supportive of his claims, such as the susceptibility of the Pakistani police to political influence. The Reviewer was not obliged to provide information of that sort to the applicant and the fact that she did not does not amount to error on her part.
Ground 3 – Member of a particular social group
Applicant’s submissions
In his amended application the applicant particularised this allegation in the following terms:
(a)It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that, in the context of his relationship, “people of the applicant’s caste and his religion would constitute or may constitute a particular social group for the purposes of the Refugee Convention.”
(b)The applicant claimed, and the Second Respondent accepted, that he was of the Sunni religion and the Shaikh Quraishi caste.
(c)The Second Respondent did not accept that the applicant was a member “of any particular social group comprising young men who form relationships with women of a different religion or higher caste, who form relationships with girls which are not approved of by the girl’s relatives.”
(d)The particular social group, as put on behalf of the applicant, was capable of constituting a particular social group and/or should have been considered by the Second Respondent.
In his submissions the applicant also argued that he had claimed, and it had been accepted by the Reviewer, that he was a Sunni Muslim of the Shaikh Quraishi caste. He submitted that the particular social group of which he claimed to be a member, people of his caste and religion, was capable of constituting a particular social group and should have been considered by the Reviewer. The applicant submitted that this claim arose sufficiently squarely on the material such that the Reviewer’s failure to deal with it constituted error.
Consideration
At the interview with the Reviewer the applicant’s claim to be a member of a particular social group was articulated by his adviser in the following terms:
In essence his claim is that he was treated the way he was treated by his girlfriend’s family because of his faith and also because he is from a different caste to his girlfriend’s family, his being a lower caste … people of the applicant’s caste and his religion would constitute or may constitute a particular social group for the purposes of the Refugee Convention and his claims are therefore Convention related.
The applicant submitted in these proceedings that this had been put in the context of his relationship with the girl with whom he had been involved.
The Reviewer dealt with that submission as follows:
Not [recte: Nor] do I accept that the claimant is a member of any particular social group comprising young men who form relationships with women of a different religion or higher caste, [scil: or] who form relationships with girls which are not approved of by the girl’s relatives. I do not accept that either group is objectively identifiable in Pakistan or united by common characteristics, attributes, beliefs or interests. There are likely to be millions of relationships in Pakistan between people of different religions and castes or which are objected to by relatives of either party. The circumstances and community perception and acceptance of each relationship and the persons involved would be unique to each and vastly different.
Although not expressed precisely in terms of the applicant’s religion and his particular caste, I conclude that the Reviewer did nevertheless address the particular social group claim made by the applicant’s advisers during the interview. Each element of their submission appears in the passage quoted above at [31].
Further, although expressed in short form, the Reviewer demonstrated an accurate understanding of the test she was required to apply. That test was described by Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby JJ in Applicant S v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2004) 217 CLR 387 at 400 [36]:
… the determination of whether a group falls within the definition of “particular social group” in Art 1A(2) of the Convention can be summarised as follows. First, the group must be identifiable by a characteristic or attribute common to all members of the group. Secondly, the characteristic or attribute common to all members of the group cannot be the shared fear of persecution. Thirdly, the possession of that characteristic or attribute must distinguish the group from society at large. Borrowing the language of Dawson J in Applicant A, a group that fulfils the first two propositions, but not the third, is merely a “social group” and not a “particular social group”. (footnote omitted)
Importantly, the particular social group postulated by the applicant’s advisers does not satisfy the test articulated by their Honours. The only common attribute of the members of the group identified by the applicant’s advisers is social inferiority to and religious difference from their partners and, as the Reviewer observed, in Pakistan there are likely to be millions of such relationships of many different sorts. It could not be said that a group of such variety possessed a characteristic which distinguished it from Pakistani society at large. As a result it was not a particular social group as understood by the Convention and the applicant’s membership of it did not support a claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason on that account. The Reviewer did not err in reaching that conclusion.
To the extent that the applicant’s allegation was that the relevant particular social group was Sunni Muslims of the Shaikh Quraishi caste, the Reviewer did not need to consider this because she had dealt with the applicant’s claim to have been persecuted for having those characteristics when she found in the first part of para.43 of her reasons that he had not been.
Ground 4 – Availability of state protection
Applicant’s submissions
The applicant submitted that the Reviewer’s failure to properly consider whether the harm he suffered was Convention-related caused her to err in her finding as to the availability of state protection. He submitted that the finding that protection was available to him because members of the Muslim League had negotiated his release demonstrated that the Reviewer asked the wrong questions and had applied the wrong tests when considering the availability of state protection. The applicant submitted that this finding did not address the issue of whether he would be denied effective state protection because of his membership of a particular social group based on his caste and religion. The applicant also submitted that the country information relied upon by the Reviewer and the issue of state protection were not raised with him for comment and that this constituted a denial of procedural fairness.
Consideration
As the Reviewer concluded that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason there was no need for her to consider the availability of state protection. Consequently, even if she had erred in making her finding on that latter issue, no reviewable error is disclosed thereby. But in any event, the finding in question was open to the Reviewer on the evidence before her and no denial of procedural fairness has been identified as the information on which she reached her conclusion had been provided to her by the applicant during the course of his interview with her.
Ground 5 – Relocation
Applicant’s submission
The applicant submitted that the Reviewer’s finding that the harm he feared was “specific and localized” was based on or affected by her error in finding that the harm he suffered was not Convention-related. He submitted that the Reviewer did not address the issue of relocation on the alternative basis that he had previously encountered Convention-related persecution at the hands of the girl’s relatives who were politically powerful and whose actions were motivated by hostility towards his religion and caste.
The applicant also submitted that the Reviewer failed to consider whether relocation was reasonably practicable. He submitted that there was no basis for the Reviewer’s finding that “[t]here do not appear to be any impediments to [the applicant] moving to a different part of Punjab and establishing himself there”.
Consideration
Again, as the Reviewer did not err in concluding that the harm which the applicant said he feared was not Convention-related, there was no need for her to consider the question of relocation and any error which might have infected that latter finding would be of no significance to the outcome of these proceedings. However, no such error is apparent. First, the finding concerning “specific and localized” harm was not a finding based on an acceptance or rejection of the applicant’s claim that the harm he said he feared had a Convention nexus. It was an observation on the nature of the postulated harm, not on what might have motivated it.
Secondly, the Reviewer’s conclusion that it was reasonable to expect the applicant to relocate to another part of Punjab did not evidence a mistaken approach. In this connection, the comments of Tracey and Foster JJ in SZMCD v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (2009) 174 FCR 415 are relevant:
The test for relocation is whether it is practicable in the particular circumstances of the particular applicant … The answer to that question in turn depends upon the framework set by the particular objections raised to relocation: Randhawa 52 FCR at 442–443, especially at 443C-D. (at 438-439 [124], Moore J agreeing at 417 [1])
The Reviewer’s summary of her interview with the applicant records that he said that he did not want to live in Karachi because it was too violent and Manzoor’s people controlled Pakistan from their stronghold, the whole government being in the hands of one group. When the Reviewer asked the applicant why he could not live elsewhere in Punjab given its large population, his unresponsive reply was that the current President of Pakistan had been imprisoned for ten years and now controlled the country. Given that response, the applicant’s personal characteristics and the Reviewer’s earlier findings concerning the risks posed by Manzoor, it was open to her to conclude that the applicant could reasonably relocate within Punjab.
Conclusion
The applicant has not demonstrated that the Reviewer’s review was procedurally unfair or not conducted by reference to the correct legal principles correctly applied.
Consequently, the application will be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding forty-four (44) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Cameron FM
Date: 20 April 2012
4
6
1