Gashi v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Internal relocation is not unduly harsh merely because an asylum seeker would face social and economic difficulties common throughout the proposed area, or lacks friends and relatives there. Something more is required. Past persecution in the applicant’s original locality does not, without more, make relocation unreasonable where he would be reasonably free from persecution elsewhere. Mental illness may be relevant to the reasonableness of internal relocation, but medical evidence must address that specific issue. Evidence concerning the effect of returning to the country generally may be insufficient if it does not consider the materially different conditions in the proposed place of relocation.

The applicant, a Kosovan Albanian, claimed asylum after failing to respond to military call-up papers and experiencing arrest and ill-treatment in Kosovo. A special adjudicator found that his fear was not objectively well-founded, having regard to conditions after the end of hostilities.

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed his appeal. It accepted that he might face risk from Serbs near his home village, but considered whether it would be unduly harsh for him to relocate elsewhere in Kosovo. It rejected that argument, including on the basis of psychiatric evidence concerning depression. The applicant made a renewed, out-of-time application for permission to appeal. The central issue was whether internal relocation was unreasonable or unduly harsh in light of the general conditions, his history, and his mental health.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Keene and Lord Justice Thorpe, unanimously refused the renewed application for permission to appeal. The court indicated that it would have extended time if the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success.
2. General social and economic difficulties in Kosovo, including problems with housing, social assistance and other services, did not amount to undue hardship where those difficulties were common throughout the province. The applicant’s history of persecution in his original locality did not itself make relocation unreasonable. Nor was it sufficient that he might lack friends or relatives in the alternative location. The applicant’s age and circumstances did not make relocation without his immediate family unreasonable.
3. The applicant’s emotional and mental state was relevant to the reasonableness of internal relocation. However, the psychiatric evidence did not materially assist him. The reports addressed the risk of worsening mental health on return to Kosovo generally. They did not consider the distinct effect of relocation to another part of Kosovo where, objectively, he would be free from persecution. The evidence therefore did not establish an arguable error in the Tribunal’s assessment.
4. The unpursued complaint that the Tribunal had given inadequate reasons could not demonstrate an error of law in its substantive decision and was without merit.

The application was refused, with detailed assessment of costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Refused the renewed application for permission to appeal and ordered detailed assessment of costs.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Dismissed the applicant’s appeal in a decision sent out on 18 June 2001. The Tribunal considered internal relocation elsewhere in Kosovo and rejected the medical and non-medical grounds.
• Special adjudicator: Concluded that the applicant’s fear of persecution was not objectively well-founded.