Internal Relocation in Protection Visa Cases: Can You Safely Live Elsewhere?
Protection Visa 866 hub: For the complete onshore Protection Visa pathway, including eligibility, refugee and complementary protection criteria, evidence, processing, refusals and ART review, see our Protection Visa 866 Australia guide.
One recurring issue in Australian Protection visa cases is whether an applicant could avoid the feared harm by living somewhere else in their country. This is often described as internal relocation in a Protection visa case, but the precise legal test depends on which protection criterion is being considered.
Refugee criterion: the fear must relate to all areas
Section 5J of the Migration Act provides that, for a well-founded fear of persecution, the real chance of persecution must relate to all areas of the receiving country. This makes the geographic reach of the risk legally important.
Complementary protection has its own relocation rule
Complementary protection is governed by different statutory language. A case should therefore identify whether relocation is being considered under the refugee criterion, complementary protection, or both.
“Just move to another city” is not enough analysis
The decision-maker should examine the applicant’s particular risk and the proposed area. Relevant questions can include:
- who the feared actor is;
- whether that actor can locate the applicant elsewhere;
- national databases, family networks or political reach;
- police or government involvement;
- ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality or other characteristics;
- the applicant’s personal circumstances; and
- whether relocation is legally reasonable under the applicable criterion.
Non-state actors can have nationwide reach
A persecutor does not need to be a government to create a country-wide risk. Powerful family networks, criminal organisations, political groups or community structures may operate across regions. Evidence should address actual reach rather than assume it.
See our guide to Protection visa claims involving non-state actors.
Past relocation attempts are important
If the applicant previously moved within the country, explain what happened. Did the move provide safety? Was the applicant located again? How long did they stay? Why did they leave?
Country information should be location-specific
National human-rights reports may not answer whether the risk differs between provinces or cities. Use reliable information addressing the proposed place of relocation where available.
Family support is relevant but not decisive by itself
A decision-maker may ask whether the applicant has relatives elsewhere. The existence of a cousin in another city does not itself resolve the legal risk. Explain the actual relationship, capacity to provide support and whether contacting family could expose the applicant.
Gender and social circumstances
The practical position of a single woman, LGBTIQ+ applicant, person with disability or member of a minority may differ substantially from that of the general population. Evidence should address the applicant, not an abstract “reasonable person”.
State protection and relocation are separate issues
A case may involve both questions: whether authorities can provide effective protection and whether the person could safely live elsewhere. Analyse each rather than blending them together.
Prepare a relocation evidence matrix
For each proposed location, identify the feared actor’s reach, available protection, prior incidents, family/community presence, ability to live safely and the most relevant country evidence.
If Home Affairs or the ART has raised internal relocation in your Protection visa case, contact Emigrate Lawyers for advice on the statutory test and evidence.
Related guides: See our guides to state protection and complementary protection in subclass 866 cases.
Official resource: Migration Act 1958.
This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice.
Madhab Kharel
Principal Lawyer & Director, Emigrate Lawyers
Madhab Kharel is the Principal Lawyer and Director of Emigrate Lawyers, an Australian law firm assisting clients across Australia and internationally. His migration law practice includes Partner Visas, Protection Visas, visa refusals and cancellations, Administrative Review Tribunal matters, health and character issues, Schedule 3, Section 48, sponsorship limitations and employer-sponsored migration. He regularly advises clients with complex immigration histories and matters requiring detailed legal submissions and evidence strategy.
Reviewed by Madhab Kharel, Principal Lawyer
Date reviewed: 19 September 2026
