Federal Court (Full Court). For the purposes of assessing complementary protection criteria, s 36(2B)(a) required AAT to consider whether "it would be reasonable for the non-citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm". Is s 36(2B)(a) informed by, and does it give effect to, a principle akin to the principle of internal relocation? Did AAT misinterpret s 36(2B)(a) by using as a starting point its assessment that Appellant had two "home areas", rather than directing attention to the place where Appellant was likely to return to?
The questions to the Full Court of the Federal Court (FCAFC) were as follows:
Question 1: Is 36(2B)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) informed by, and does it give effect to, a principle akin to the principle of internal relocation?
Question 2: Did the AAT misinterpret s 36(2B)(a) by using as a starting point its assessment that the Appellant had two "home areas", rather than directing attention to the place where he was likely to return?
The FCAFC answered those questions as follows: