Federal Court. Can it be said that a protection "claim based on the need to support one’s family is more likely to “clearly emerge” from the material given the fundamental relevance of the matter in human terms"? Does the "review material" before the Immigration Assessment Authority include the delegate's decision?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Can it be said that a protection "claim based on the need to support one’s family is more likely to “clearly emerge” from the material given the fundamental relevance of the matter in human terms"?
Question 2: Does the "review material" before the Immigration Assessment Authority include the delegate's decision?
Question 3: In determining whether it would be reasonable for a protection visa applicant to relocate within their country of origin, where an applicant has dependent family members, will it "usually be necessary for a decision-maker to consider whether or not those family members would accompany the applicant to the new “safe” area upon his or her return or in the reasonably foreseeable future"?
Question 4: If the answer to Question 3 is 'yes', can it be said that "matters such as the availability and adequacy of employment, the ability to support family, housing, education and healthcare in the “safe” area may also be relevant to an assessment of the reasonableness of the applicant relocating"?
Question 5: Was there a natural nexus "between a person obtaining employment and their ability to support their family such that the Authority’s consideration of the former issue can be taken to have been an implicit consideration of the latter in the circumstances"?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: