But the man has won a reprieve, successfully appealing against a finding that he could avoid persecution in his homeland by simply relocating away from the volatile Swat district.

The Pakistani citizen was forced to flee his home village in 2009, fearing serious harm from the Taliban who at the time exerted significant influence in the area.

He had been politically active and worked in direct opposition to the Taliban after his uncle was killed in 2008, joining a "peace committee" that aided the Pakistani military.

The man claimed to have led the army to persons of interest, and helped identify active Taliban members in the area.

His work, he said, saw him captured and brought before a local Taliban leader, and later attacked and injured while on a night patrol with the peace committee.

In May 2009, he said the Taliban issued a verdict that he and his father were military spies and were to be killed.

He then fled from the Swat Valley, the same district where schoolgirl and female education activist Malala Yousafzai was shot in the face by Taliban gunman in 2012.

The man became internally displaced, and eventually arrived in Australia in 2012, applying for a protection visa.

He argued he would face retribution if he returned to Pakistan, because of his work with the peace committee, due to his political and religious beliefs, and because his time in Australia may see him branded a Western spy.

But a delegate of then Labor Immigration Minister Chris Bowen refused the man a visa, a decision later confirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

The tribunal said it had some doubts about the veracity of all of the man's claims, but ultimately accepted he had worked in opposition to the Taliban in 2011 and 2012, and that he would be known in the area if he returned.

It found his fear of persecution was well-founded, despite the substantial weakening of the Taliban's influence in the Swat Valley since his departure.

But the tribunal, in dismissing the appeal, agreed with the government's submissions he could be safe by simply moving to another area of Pakistan, including the capital Islamabad or nearby Rawalpindi.

The way the tribunal dealt with that question of relocation, however, was the focus of an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, which handed down its decision on Friday.

The United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees does not afford refugee status to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution, but could still be protected properly in another area of their home country.

That changes, however, when it is not considered reasonable for the person to relocate.

He said the tribunal had failed to properly consider the absence of a family network, considered crucial among his Pashtun ethnicity, when making its decision.

Representatives of current Immigration Minister Peter Dutton argued the tribunal had properly considered the issue of family when deciding the man could relocate, but had found his youth, independence, education and prospects still made it reasonable.

Justice Michael Barker conceded the case was "not an easy matter to determine".

"The question is finely balanced but, given the importance of Tribunal fact-finding in relation to protection visa applications of this sort, I consider the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, as it were," he said.

"The Tribunal effectively found in favour of the appellant in all other significant aspects of the protection visa application.

"Critically, the Tribunal found that he was – subject to the relocation issue – a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations."

He found the issue was only dealt with briefly by the tribunal in its decision, and said it was not open to infer it had fully considered all the material about the reasonableness of relocation.

He found the error meant the man's appeal should be upheld.

The case was remitted back to the tribunal for reconsideration.