SZQMR v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZQMR, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) to refuse him a protection visa. He alleged persecution in India due to his wife’s sexual orientation, claiming he faced a well-founded fear of harm within his local area. The Tribunal upheld the primary decision, finding the applicant had a well-founded fear of harm but could relocate within India to avoid that harm. The court was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal had made a reviewable error in its decision.

The central issue before the court was whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the applicant could relocate within India to avoid the harm he feared. The applicant argued that the Tribunal should not have applied the relocation principle without rigorously testing and resolving his claim for protection. He contended that the Tribunal did not adequately consider the specific circumstances of his case, particularly the risks associated with relocation and the practical difficulties in doing so. The Minister for Immigration defended the Tribunal's decision, asserting that the applicant could reasonably relocate within India and that no reviewable error had been made.

The court found that the Tribunal had not erred in its decision. It held that the Tribunal had appropriately considered the evidence and the relevant principles of law. The court emphasised that the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the applicant could relocate within India to avoid the harm he feared, based on the evidence presented. The applicant's argument that the Tribunal should not have applied the relocation principle without rigorously testing his claim was rejected. The court found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, as it was not persuaded that the Tribunal had made a reviewable error.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for judicial review. The applicant was ordered to pay the Minister for Immigration's costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, amounting to $6,240. The court's decision upheld the Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant had a well-founded fear of harm but could reasonably relocate within India to avoid that harm.