SZSJB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In this case, the appellant, a citizen of Afghanistan, appealed against the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to remove him from Australia. The appellant argued that it would be unreasonable for him to relocate within Afghanistan due to the risk of generalised violence and non-targeted harm. The primary judge dismissed the application for judicial review, but the appeal was subsequently heard by the court. The central legal issues in this case revolved around whether the assessor had erred in her International Treaties Obligation Assessment (ITOA) when assessing the reasonableness of the appellant relocating within Afghanistan. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the appellant had properly characterised his claims, whether the assessor had failed to consider the risk of generalised violence, and whether the relocation test was applied correctly. The court found that the appellant had indeed raised concerns about the risk of generalised violence in Kabul, and that the assessor had failed to adequately consider this risk when determining the reasonableness of relocation. The court held that the appellant's claims were not limited to specific persecution or serious harm but also encompassed the risk of generalised violence. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Federal Circuit Court were set aside. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection was required to pay the appellant's costs in both the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court.