Successful refugee visa appeal

On 22 July 2020, we had a win for our client, Mr Mohamed (not his real name), in the matter of CVP18 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2020] FCCA 1845.

Mr Mohamed is from Afghanistan. The Taliban killed Mr Mohamed’s father due to his work as a truck driver delivering goods to the Americans. Shortly after this, Mr Mohamed fled Afghanistan fearing that the Taliban would kill him as well - he had from time to time worked with his father and the Taliban had, at least impliedly, threatened him over the phone.

In addition to fearing harm from the Taliban, Mr Mohamed also claimed to fear harm on the roads of Afghanistan which are notoriously dangerous. Road travellers are often held up by terrorists and criminal gangs, and there have been numerous instances of travellers being abducted and killed.

A delegate of the Minister for Immigration decided that Mr Mohamed had a well-founded fear of persecution in his home town. The delegate found that there was a real chance that Mr Mohamed would be identified as a person who had previously assisted the Americans and would be targeted by the Taliban. However, the delegate ultimately found that Mr Mohamed did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in all areas of Afghanistan and that it would be reasonable for him to relocate to Kabul. On that basis, the delegate refused to grant Mr Mohamed a protection visa.

Mr Mohamed’s protection visa application was then referred to the Immigration Assessment Authority for review. The Authority in essence agreed with the delegate and affirmed the delegate’s decision.

Mr Mohamed then applied for judicial review of the Authority’s decision in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. We came into the matter at this point. We identified one ground of review for Mr Mohamed, namely that the Authority had failed to consider his claim to fear harm due to the dangerous roads of Afghanistan. This claim was particularly significant as Mr Mohamed would have to drive from Kabul to his home town and also between his home town and Pakistan where his family were staying. Ultimately, the Judge agreed that the Authority had failed to consider this claim and held that that constituted a jurisdictional error.

The final result was that Mr Mohamed’s case was sent back to the Authority for reconsideration according to law, meaning he has another opportunity to get a protection visa.