DQA17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 864

DQA17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 864

The Immigration Assessment Authority did not fall into jurisdictional error; it considered practical realities, risks of harm lower than significant harm, appellant's vulnerabilities, and determined relocation to Kabul was not unreasonable based on the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'complementary Protection' 'internal Relocation' 'jurisdictional Error' 'reasonableness of Relocation']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'human Rights'] ['protection Visas' 'complementary Protection' 'internal Relocation' 'jurisdictional Error' 'reasonableness of Relocation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Immigration Assessment Authority engaged in jurisdictional error in concluding the appellant is not owed protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)' 'Whether a real risk of significant harm is the only level or kind of harm relevant to the reasonableness of internal relocation under s 36(2B)(a)' "Whether the IAA failed to consider the appellant's accepted vulnerabilities in assessing reasonableness of relocation"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Immigration Assessment Authority did not fall into jurisdictional error; it considered practical realities, risks of harm lower than significant harm, appellant's vulnerabilities, and determined relocation to Kabul was not unreasonable based on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Leave to amend the notice of appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal."]