BPX17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 763

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judicial Review Decision Concerning Refusal of Protection (class Xa) Visas / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From BPX17 & Anor V Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCCA 3047

Legal Issues

1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Circuit Court judge erred by failing to conclude that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made jurisdictional error in applying the test for a real risk of significant harm.' "Whether the wife had raised before the Tribunal a claim that she would proselytise across India as a Jehovah's Witness." 'Whether Appellant S395/2000 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs applied to the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether the Tribunal was required to assess the reasonableness of the appellants refraining from visiting Indian states with anti-conversion laws.' 'Whether it was unreasonable for the appellants to modify their conduct by not visiting states with anti-conversion laws.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal correctly applied the complementary protection provisions. It was open to the Tribunal to find that the appellants could reasonably relocate to areas of India without anti-conversion laws, including Haryana or Delhi, and could practise their religion as Jehovah's Witnesses outside the six states with anti-conversion laws without a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal was entitled to be satisfied that there were no substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to India, the appellants would face a real risk of significant harm. Any errors in the Federal Circuit Court's analysis did not show jurisdictional error by the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

• ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'The appellants pay the costs of the first respondent, to be assessed if not agreed.']