SZABF v MIMIA

The applicants, SZABF and others, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (MIMIA) to refuse their applications for protection visas. The applicants were citizens of Afghanistan and had arrived in Australia by boat. The Minister's decisions were based on the assessment that the applicants did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the High Court of Australia was whether the Minister, in assessing the applicants' claims for protection, was required to consider the possibility of internal relocation within Afghanistan. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the Minister's assessment that the applicants could safely relocate to Kabul was a reasonable one, and whether the Minister had properly applied the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act* and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) in reaching that conclusion.

McHugh and Heydon JJ, in their joint judgment, affirmed the principle that a person is not owed protection if they can safely relocate to another part of their country of origin. They found that the Minister had erred in law by failing to adequately consider the evidence regarding the safety of internal relocation to Kabul. The Court held that the Minister's assessment was based on an incomplete and potentially flawed understanding of the security situation in Kabul, and that the Minister had not given sufficient weight to the applicants' evidence concerning the risks they would face there. The Court concluded that the Minister's decision was not open to be supported on the material before him.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the decisions of the Minister, and remitted the applications for protection visas to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.