AHM18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 409
The return of the appellant to Najaf, his home city, does not constitute 'relocation' under s 36(2B)(a) of the Migration Act 1958. The Authority was not required to consider the reasonableness of relocation as no relocation was involved. There was no real risk of significant harm in Najaf, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 26 March 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Decision / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'internal Relocation Principle' 'judicial Review']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Decision / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the Immigration Assessment Authority erred in not considering the reasonableness of the appellant's return to his hometown under s 36(2B)(a) of the Migration Act 1958" 'Whether the Authority misapplied s 36(2)(aa) and s 36(2B) of the Migration Act 1958' "Whether the appellant's return to Najaf constitutes 'relocation' triggering the relocation principle"]
Ratio Decidendi
The return of the appellant to Najaf, his home city, does not constitute 'relocation' under s 36(2B)(a) of the Migration Act 1958. The Authority was not required to consider the reasonableness of relocation as no relocation was involved. There was no real risk of significant harm in Najaf, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, to be assessed in default of agreement."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment