Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Reasonableness of internal relocation under the Refugee Convention requires comparison between conditions in the claimant’s place of habitual residence and those in the proposed safe haven, assessed for a person with the claimant’s characteristics. Conditions common to both places do not ordinarily affect that comparison.

A failed refugee claim does not preclude a claim under the European Convention on Human Rights. Removal may engage article 8 where differences in treatment and support create a real risk of a sufficiently serious adverse effect on physical or moral integrity. The decision-maker must assess the medical evidence, the available support in each country and the justification for removal under article 8(2).

The appellant was an ethnic Albanian from Mitrovica in Kosovo. He claimed asylum after persecution in his home area. The Secretary of State accepted that protection concerns could arise there but maintained that he could relocate safely to Pristina.

An adjudicator upheld the asylum claim. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal, finding that relocation would not be unduly harsh and that removal would infringe neither article 3 nor article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The appellant’s psychiatric evidence indicated that return anywhere in Kosovo could worsen his depression and create a strong risk of severe depression, suicide or self-neglect.

The central issues were whether conditions affecting the whole of Kosovo could make internal relocation unreasonable under the Refugee Convention, and whether the Tribunal had adequately determined the separate human rights consequences of removal.

1. Appeal allowed in part, unanimously. The Refugee Convention ground failed, but the human rights issue was remitted to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal for fresh determination. Buxton LJ gave the leading judgment. May and Aldous LJJ agreed.

2. Following AE and FE v Secretary of State, the internal-relocation inquiry compares the conditions in the claimant’s place of habitual residence with those in the proposed safe haven. The comparison must account for the effect of those conditions on a person with the claimant’s characteristics. It does not compare conditions in the safe haven with those in the country of asylum.

3. The psychiatric-treatment difficulties identified by the evidence affected Kosovo generally. They applied as much in Mitrovica as in Pristina and were therefore irrelevant to the internal-relocation comparison. Applying the rigorous standard identified in Karanakaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] 3 All ER 449, relocation remained reasonably available. The Refugee Convention afforded no relief.

4. Failure of the refugee claim did not determine the separate human rights claim. Treatment falling below the article 3 threshold may engage article 8 where removal creates sufficiently serious adverse effects on physical or moral integrity. Under Razgar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 840, the decision-maker must compare the claimant’s mental health, treatment and support in the United Kingdom with those expected in the receiving country. There must be substantial grounds for believing that removal creates a real risk of sufficiently serious harm.

5. The Tribunal inadequately explained its findings that adequate treatment existed in Pristina and that return would not precipitate deterioration. Its conclusion conflicted with the only medical evidence, which identified a strong risk of severe depression and consequent death by suicide or self-neglect. That evidence potentially engaged article 8. May LJ considered that it might conceivably engage article 3.

6. The Tribunal had neither followed the required article 8 analysis nor balanced the claimant’s interests against immigration control under article 8(2). Its order was set aside. The case was remitted to determine afresh whether removal to Kosovo or Pristina would breach the United Kingdom’s human rights obligations, with limited liberty for further medical evidence or cross-examination.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed in part. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s order was set aside, and the human rights issue was remitted for fresh determination. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: The Tribunal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal. It held that relocation to Pristina would not be unduly harsh and that removal would infringe neither article 3 nor article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. Adjudicator: The adjudicator upheld the appellant’s refugee claim.