Johnson v Secretary Of State For Home Department

Where an immigration tribunal accepts the substance of an applicant’s account and appears to accept that the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights are engaged, but rejects protection because an internal protection area may exist, the Court of Appeal may require fuller consideration before determining permission to appeal. The assessment must address both safety from persecution or degrading treatment and whether relocation would be reasonable and not unduly harsh. Relevant issues may include the applicant’s ability to obtain employment and accommodation, the risk of sexual exploitation or blackmail, and whether the proposed area is realistically free from the persecuting network.

The applicant, a Jamaican national, sought asylum and human-rights protection after the murders of her children and other relatives, which the Immigration Appeal Tribunal accepted were connected with her having informed the police about gang violence. The tribunal nevertheless concluded that she could safely and reasonably relocate to previously untried areas of Jamaica.

She sought permission to appeal, alleging errors concerning the availability and reasonableness of an internal protection area, the risk of continuing sexual exploitation, and the practical feasibility of relocation. She also sought to adduce further evidence. The central issue was whether the application required consideration by a full court after the tribunal’s apparent change of analysis.

1. Application adjourned. The court considered that the tribunal had accepted the applicant’s evidence in substance and appeared to accept that the Conventions were engaged, but had nevertheless denied protection because other areas of Jamaica might provide an internal protection area. The new analysis, together with further evidence proposed for admission, required fuller consideration by a full court on notice to the Secretary of State.

2. The full court would need to consider whether relocation was realistically safe, reasonable and not unduly harsh. That assessment could not be confined to the existence of areas where the applicant had not previously tried to live. It potentially required consideration of employment and accommodation difficulties, the risk of sexual exploitation, the risk that disclosure of her background would expose her to gang violence, and whether she could avoid continuing interest from the Tivoli Gardens gangs.

3. The court indicated that the grounds might properly be amended to raise separately whether any part of Jamaica would provide safety from persecution or exploitation, in addition to the reasonableness and undue-hardship issue under the Michigan guidelines, which had been essentially accepted in R v Secretary for the Home Department, ex parte Robinson [1998] QB 929.

4. It would not be appropriate at the present hearing to determine the application to admit the further evidence. The application was adjourned to be heard before three Lord Justices. The applicant was directed to file an amended notice and further skeleton argument within 21 days, with the respondent’s skeleton to follow within a further 21 days.

• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Accepted the substance of the applicant’s account but concluded that relocation to previously untried areas of Jamaica would be safe and neither unreasonable nor unduly harsh.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal was adjourned for hearing before a full court on notice to the Secretary of State.