Vanegas v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum claim, internal relocation must be assessed on the evidence and by asking whether relocation would be unduly harsh. There is no guideline or rule of law that internal relocation is systematically unavailable in Colombia. Where a claimant’s well-founded fear of persecution in the home area is accepted, the tribunal must reason clearly and fully about material bearing on relocation, including substantial UNHCR material. Exiguous treatment of such evidence may make an error of law arguable and justify permission to appeal. Decisions of other tribunals on overlapping facts do not ordinarily determine the factual assessment in a separate case.

The applicant, a Colombian national, claimed asylum after being threatened by paramilitaries because of suspected links with FARC. The adjudicator accepted her credibility and accepted that returning her to Caloto would expose her to a real risk of persecution, but considered that relocation elsewhere in Colombia, including Bogotá, would not be unduly harsh.

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal on 27 September 2002. It considered that the evidence did not show that the paramilitaries would pursue her elsewhere and noted her uneventful month in Cali. On a renewed application, the central issues were whether the tribunal had misapplied the unduly harsh test and whether it had failed to consider material concerning internal relocation, including the Colombia Country Assessment and UNHCR evidence.

Permission to appeal was granted. The court was deciding whether the proposed appeal was arguable, not finally determining the asylum claim or the merits of internal relocation.

1. The challenge based on Robinson [1997] Imm AR 568 disclosed no arguable legal error. The tribunal had applied the unduly harsh test and there was no sufficient basis for saying that it had misunderstood that authority.
2. There was no guideline rule, still less a rule of law, that internal relocation was systematically and always unavailable in Colombia. The issue remained fact-sensitive. The view adopted by another tribunal on overlapping facts did not ordinarily determine the assessment in a separate case.
3. The evidential challenge was nevertheless arguable. The applicant had an accepted well-founded fear of persecution in her home area. Against that background, the tribunal arguably needed to explain more clearly and fully the impact of material concerning internal relocation. Its treatment of the UNHCR material could be regarded as exiguous.
4. The applicant could also argue that the tribunal’s inference that the paramilitaries intended only to drive her out of town was unsupported by the evidence.

UNHCR was to be notified of the grant of permission and could submit written material limited initially to 10 pages.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division), judgment [2003] EWCA Civ 179: granted permission on the renewed application.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the applicant’s appeal; decision promulgated on 27 September 2002.
• Adjudicator: dismissed the applicant’s appeal against refusal of asylum and the making of removal directions on 6 June 2002.