Protection Visa Internal Relocation

Protection Visa Internal Relocation is one of the most common reasons a genuine Subclass 866 claim is refused. The Department accepts that the applicant faces a real risk in their home town or region, then finds that they could live safely somewhere else in the same country. If that finding is made, the protection claim fails, even though the danger at home is real.

Many applicants never see this coming. Their statement explains what happened in their village or city, but says nothing about why the rest of the country is also unsafe. The Protection Visa Internal Relocation issue is then raised for the first time at interview, or in the refusal decision itself. This article explains how the relocation tests work, how the Department applies them, and how an applicant should answer them.

What is Protection Visa Internal Relocation?

Protection Visa Internal Relocation is the principle that a person does not need Australia's protection if they could avoid the harm they fear by moving to another area of their own country. It is sometimes called the internal flight alternative or internal protection. In the Migration Act, it appears in two separate provisions, one for each pathway to a Subclass 866 visa.

A protection visa can be granted on refugee grounds under section 36(2)(a), or on complementary protection grounds under section 36(2)(aa). The general guide to the Subclass 866 protection visa explains both pathways. Protection Visa Internal Relocation is assessed differently under each of them:

• Refugee claims. Section 5J(1)(c) provides that, for a well-founded fear of persecution, the real chance of persecution must relate to all areas of the receiving country.
• Complementary protection claims. Section 36(2B)(a) provides that there is taken not to be a real risk of significant harm if it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk of significant harm.

These tests use different words, and they produce different results. An applicant can succeed under one and fail under the other. That is why the Protection Visa Internal Relocation question has to be answered for both tests, not just one.

The refugee test: does the risk exist in all areas?

Under the refugee test, the question is purely factual: is there a real chance of persecution in every part of the country? Section 5J(1)(c) does not ask whether it would be fair, sensible or reasonable to expect the applicant to move. It asks whether a safe area exists at all.

The Department's processing guidelines direct officers to begin with the applicant's home region. That is the place the applicant is likely to return to, given their individual circumstances. If there is no real chance of persecution in the home region, the officer will generally not need to consider relocation. If there is a real chance of persecution in the home region, the officer must then ask whether there is another part of the country where the applicant would not face that real chance.

The guidelines add an important safeguard. The officer should consider whether the applicant would have safe and lawful access to the home region or the proposed area. An area that is safe in theory, but can only be reached by crossing territory where the applicant would be harmed, is not a real alternative.

For the refugee test, the Protection Visa Internal Relocation question is therefore about the facts on the ground. Who is the persecutor, where do they operate, and is there genuinely somewhere in the country beyond their reach? Personal hardship in the new area, such as poverty or the loss of family support, does not answer that question on its own. It becomes central under the complementary protection test instead.

Here is the point that is widely misunderstood. The guidelines state expressly that, when making an assessment under section 5J(1)(c), an officer should not consider the reasonableness of relocation. Many online explanations still describe a single "reasonableness" test for all protection claims. That was the law before 16 December 2014. It is no longer the test for refugee claims. The detailed guide to protection visa eligibility explains how this fits within the wider refugee criteria.

The complementary protection test: is relocation reasonable?

Under complementary protection, the Protection Visa Internal Relocation test is whether relocation would be reasonable, in the sense of practicable, for this particular applicant. That wording comes from the High Court's decision in *SZATV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* \[2007\] HCA 40. The Department's Complementary Protection Guidelines confirm that section 36(2B)(a) was intended to reflect that case law.

This is a much broader enquiry than the refugee test. It looks at the real life the applicant would face in the proposed area. The Department's guidelines list factors that may be relevant, including:

• the age and gender of the applicant and any dependants;
• whether the applicant would have family, clan, tribal or other local support in the new area;
• whether the proposed place is viable;
• support available if the applicant is traumatised or has a disability;
• physical, financial, logistical and language barriers;
• the quality of protection available in the new area, including civil, political and socio-economic rights; and
• the route the applicant would have to travel to get there.

The guidelines also require the decision maker to identify a specific location. Relocation must not be considered in the abstract. The decision maker must decide where the applicant would go, and assess what the applicant would face there, including any new risks. The page on complementary protection explains the wider complementary protection test.

How the Department assesses Protection Visa Internal Relocation

The Department assesses Protection Visa Internal Relocation by identifying who the applicant fears, where that person or group operates, and whether they could find the applicant elsewhere. The answer to the first question usually decides the rest.

When the state is the source of harm

When the harm comes from the state itself, such as the police, the military or a government agency, relocation will usually not be available. The Department's guidelines state this directly in their guidance on claims involving sexual orientation and gender identity: in most cases when the agent of harm is the state, moving to another area of the country will not be available. The same logic applies more broadly. A national police force or intelligence service is not confined to one province. The guidelines recognise that there may be rare cases where a part of the country is outside the state's control.

When a non-state actor is the source of harm

When the harm comes from a non-state actor, such as a family, a criminal organisation, a militia or a local community, the Protection Visa Internal Relocation assessment turns on two things. The first is the actor's motivation to pursue the applicant. The second is the actor's ability to find them in another part of the country. The guidelines direct officers to consider both, together with the availability of state or other protection in the proposed area.

This is where evidence matters most. A family that has threatened an applicant may have relatives in many cities. A criminal group may have national reach, or links with local police. A religious or community network may extend across the country. The applicant should explain, with as much specific detail as possible, why the person or group they fear could and would find them elsewhere.

When the risk comes from society at large

Some risks do not come from a single person or organisation. They come from widespread social attitudes, from the law, or from the community as a whole. A person who faces violence because of their religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation may face similar attitudes in every part of the country. In these cases, the question is whether any real part of the country is free from that risk, taking into account how the applicant would actually live there.

Protection Visa Internal Relocation and hiding who you are

Protection Visa Internal Relocation cannot depend on the applicant hiding a protected characteristic, for the purposes of the refugee test. Section 5J(3) provides that a person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if they could take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour to avoid persecution. However, that rule does not apply where the modification would conflict with a characteristic fundamental to the person's identity or conscience, would conceal an innate or immutable characteristic, or would require any of the things listed in section 5J(3)(c).

That list includes altering or concealing religious beliefs, concealing race, ethnicity or nationality, altering or concealing political beliefs, entering or remaining in a marriage the person opposes, and concealing sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. The Department's guidelines apply this principle directly to relocation. They state that officers cannot find that an applicant can move to another area if the applicant's safety depends on other people not knowing their sexual orientation or gender identity, or on the applicant modifying their behaviour. The page on the LGBTI protection visa explains how this operates in sexuality-based claims.

The position is different under complementary protection. In *DQU16 v Minister for Home Affairs* \[2021\] HCA 10, the High Court held that the principle preventing decision makers from expecting applicants to hide protected characteristics does not apply in the same way to section 36(2)(aa). If a person would avoid significant harm by changing their behaviour on return, the harm may not be a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. This is one reason the refugee claim should be argued fully, and not treated as a formality before complementary protection.

Protection Visa Internal Relocation for women and people with dependants

Protection Visa Internal Relocation is often unrealistic for women, particularly women without family support. The Department's guidelines recognise that legal or socio-economic reasons, or child-care responsibilities, may prevent women from travelling freely or living on their own without family members. They direct officers to consider gender-related issues carefully when applying the relocation test.

In practice, this can include whether a woman can rent housing, obtain work, travel, register her children at school or live without a male guardian in the proposed area. It can also include whether she would be identified and reported to the family she has fled. The guide on divorced women as a particular social group shows how these issues can arise in a single country.

Similar questions arise for children, elderly applicants and people with a disability or serious illness. The more the applicant depends on family or local networks for daily survival, the harder it is to show that relocation would be practicable without them.

Evidence that answers the Protection Visa Internal Relocation question

The strongest evidence on Protection Visa Internal Relocation shows how far the persecutor can reach, and what life in any proposed area would actually be like for the applicant. Evidence that simply repeats the harm suffered in the home region does not answer the relocation question.

Useful evidence often includes:

• The applicant's own account. A clear explanation of who the applicant fears, where those people live, what connections they have in other parts of the country, and how the applicant knows this. The applicant's statement is their own evidence, reviewed and corrected by them before it is lodged. The guide to the protection visa statement of claims explains how the statement is structured.
• Past attempts to relocate. If the applicant moved within the country before leaving and was found, threatened or harmed again, that is direct evidence that relocation did not work.
• Evidence of reach. Messages, social media posts, police records or witness statements showing that the persecutor has contacts, influence or members in other areas.
• Country information. Reliable reports on how people in the applicant's situation are treated across the country, not just in one region. This includes national registration systems, identity checks and residence permits that would make the applicant easy to trace.
• Personal circumstances. Evidence about the applicant's education, work history, language, health, family responsibilities and support networks, which goes to whether relocation would be practicable for complementary protection.

The general guide to evidence in a protection visa application explains how each type of evidence is weighed.

How Protection Visa Internal Relocation is tested at interview

Protection Visa Internal Relocation is usually tested at the protection interview. The Department's guidelines direct officers to question applicants about relocation during the interview, particularly where the facts suggest relocation may be possible. The guidelines describe a thorough exploration as including questions to the applicant and detailed discussion in the assessment, covering both the refugee test and the complementary protection test.

Typical questions include why the applicant did not move to another city, whether they have relatives elsewhere, whether they have ever lived in another region, how the people they fear would find them, and what would stop them working or renting a home in a larger city. Applicants who have not thought about these questions often give short or uncertain answers. Those answers are then relied on in the decision.

The guidelines also state that officers must address any objections to relocation raised by the applicant. That is an important protection, but it only helps if the objections are raised clearly and supported by evidence. The guides to protection visa interview questions and the protection visa interview explain how to prepare.

After the interview, the Department may also ask for further information about relocation under section 56 of the Migration Act. The guide to responding to a section 56 request explains how to respond.

Common mistakes on Protection Visa Internal Relocation

The most common mistake on Protection Visa Internal Relocation is saying nothing about it. An application that describes only what happened in the home area leaves the Department to fill the gap with its own assumptions, usually based on general country information about the capital or the largest city.

Other mistakes that regularly cause refusals include:

• Relying on fear alone. A statement that the applicant "would not be safe anywhere" is not evidence. The Department needs to know why, and how the applicant knows.
• Contradicting the claim through travel history. If the applicant lived or worked safely in another city for a long period, or travelled freely inside the country before leaving, that history will be relied on. It must be explained, not ignored.
• Assuming the capital is unsafe because the village was. Large cities are the areas the Department is most likely to propose. The Protection Visa Internal Relocation evidence must deal with those cities specifically.
• Ignoring practical barriers. For complementary protection, the absence of family support, lack of work skills, language barriers, health problems and child-care responsibilities are all relevant. They must be raised to be considered properly.
• Treating complementary protection as an afterthought. Because the two tests are different, an argument prepared only for the refugee test may not answer the reasonableness question under section 36(2B)(a).

Each of these problems is easier to prevent at the application stage than to repair after a refusal. The guide to when you need a protection visa lawyer explains the points at which legal help makes the most difference. A Protection Visa Internal Relocation argument is strongest when it is part of the original claim, not a reaction to the Department's concerns.

Protection Visa Internal Relocation refusals and review

If a visa was refused on Protection Visa Internal Relocation grounds, the refusal can usually be reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal. The time limit to apply for review is short and strictly applied. It runs from the date the applicant is notified of the decision, and missing it can end the right to review.

A relocation refusal should be read closely. The decision record should identify which test was applied, and where the applicant was expected to go. Common problems include:

• applying a reasonableness test to the refugee claim, when section 5J(1)(c) does not involve reasonableness;
• adopting the refugee relocation finding for complementary protection, when the Department's own guidelines say that finding cannot simply be carried across;
• failing to identify a specific area of relocation for complementary protection;
• expecting the applicant to hide a protected characteristic to be safe elsewhere; and
• failing to address objections to relocation the applicant raised at interview.

The Tribunal considers the matter afresh and can take new evidence into account. That makes review the point at which the relocation evidence missing from the original application should be prepared properly. The protection visa refusals page and the Subclass 866 refusal ART guide explain the review process.

Tribunal decisions on Protection Visa Internal Relocation

Published Tribunal decisions show that Protection Visa Internal Relocation findings are regularly reconsidered on review. Each decision turns on its own facts and does not guarantee an outcome in another case, but the reasoning shows what the Tribunal looks at.

• In 1720879 (Refugee) \[2023\] AATA 2157, the applicant from the Philippines feared repeated violence from their father. The Tribunal assessed whether state protection was available and whether relocation was a real option, and remitted the matter to the Department.
• In 2405700 (Refugee) \[2024\] AATA 2496, the applicant from Solomon Islands feared a former partner's coercive control and violence. The former partner's police connections and the applicant's limited relocation options were central to the review, and the matter was remitted.

A remittal means the Tribunal sent the application back to the Department to be decided again, usually with a direction or finding. It is not itself the grant of a visa. These decisions are cited as published examples only. In both, the reach of the person feared, and the practical reality of living elsewhere, mattered more than general statements about the country.

How My Migration Lawyers handles Protection Visa Internal Relocation

My Migration Lawyers acts in protection visa matters where relocation is the central issue. The firm deals with complex protection cases, acts in many Subclass 866 claims where the Department argues that the applicant could move elsewhere, and is capable of handling these matters from the first application through to review at the Administrative Review Tribunal.

On a Protection Visa Internal Relocation issue, the work usually involves:

• Identifying the relocation risk early. The firm reviews the claim to see whether relocation is likely to be raised, under either the refugee test or the complementary protection test.
• Presenting the applicant's own account. The applicant's account of who they fear, and how far that person or group can reach, is taken in detail. The statement is the applicant's own evidence. The applicant reviews and corrects it, and decides which claims are advanced.
• Country information. Current, reliable country information about the reach of the persecutor, national registration systems and conditions in likely areas of relocation is identified and presented.
• Addressing both tests. Submissions deal separately with section 5J(1)(c) and section 36(2B)(a), so that the correct test is applied to each.
• Interview preparation. The applicant is prepared for relocation questions, so that objections are raised clearly and on the record.
• Review. Where a visa has been refused on relocation grounds, the decision is analysed and the review is prepared within time.

My Migration Lawyers is led by Principal Lawyer Weiwei Zhang. The firm's protection visa lawyers act for applicants across Australia.

If you are worried that the Department will say you could simply move somewhere else, that is a question that needs to be answered before it is asked. Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers online, or call 1300 040 300.