Gnanam v Secretary Of State For Home Department

In assessing an internal flight alternative, the decision-maker must consider all the circumstances relevant to whether relocation would be reasonable or unduly harsh. The listed considerations in Robinson are examples, not an exhaustive code. Factors which are insufficient individually may cumulatively make relocation unduly harsh. Their relevance and weight remain fact-sensitive; no factor is automatically decisive. A tribunal which refuses to consider relevant factors cumulatively adopts an erroneous legal approach. Where it cannot be said that the tribunal would inevitably have reached the same result on the correct approach, the decision must be set aside and remitted.

The appellant, a Jaffna Tamil, appealed against the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s dismissal of his asylum appeal. The tribunal rejected his evidence of LTTE involvement, detention and torture, and concluded that he could safely relocate to Colombo. It also held that relocation would not be unreasonable or unduly harsh, stating that the cumulative effect of the difficulties relied upon would not alter the conclusion reached in Robinson.

The appeal concerned whether relevant factors could be considered cumulatively when assessing the internal flight alternative, and whether the tribunal’s approach required its decision to be set aside.

Appeal allowed. The appeal was allowed with costs and the case was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal to determine whether the Secretary of State could safely return the appellant to Colombo.

1. The internal flight question asks whether the claimant can obtain effective protection in another part of the country to which he or she may reasonably be expected to move. The decision-maker must consider all the circumstances against the background that the issue is entitlement to refugee status. The examples identified in Robinson, including accessibility, physical danger, undue hardship and basic human-rights standards, are not exhaustive.
2. The tribunal was wrong if it meant that factors relevant to undue hardship could not be considered cumulatively. A factor which is insufficient by itself may contribute, with other factors, to a conclusion that relocation would be unduly harsh. The court accepted the reasoning in Sachithanansan and the cumulative approach in Sayandan.
3. The relevance and weight of each factor depend on the facts of the particular case. The factors relied upon in Sayandan do not automatically apply to every claimant, and the decision-maker must first identify which matters are relevant. The threshold of undue harshness remains demanding.
4. The tribunal’s wording could not safely be treated as merely a disagreement with Sayandan on the facts. Its statement that cumulative consideration went too far indicated that it had adopted the wrong legal approach. It was impossible to say that the tribunal would inevitably have reached the same conclusion had it applied the correct approach.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed. The case was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal — The appellant’s appeal against the refusal of asylum was dismissed on 8 September 1998 after rehearing.
• Special Adjudicator — The appellant’s appeal was allowed on 9 May 1997.