Januzi (FC) (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) Hamid (FC) (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) Gaafar (FC) (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) Mohammed (FC) (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)(Consolidated Appeals)

An asylum claimant may be denied refugee status where a safe and realistically accessible place of internal relocation is available. The objective question is whether, considering the claimant’s circumstances and conditions in the country of nationality, relocation would be unreasonable or unduly harsh.

Conditions need not satisfy international civil, political and socio-economic standards or match those in the country of asylum. The claimant must, however, be able to lead a relatively normal life by the standards of the country concerned. Threats to life, inhuman treatment, destitution or comparable deprivation may make relocation unreasonable.

State involvement in persecution creates no absolute bar to relocation. Its nature, reach and degree of control must be assessed on the evidence.

These consolidated appeals concerned four foreign nationals who faced persecution for Convention reasons in their home areas but were refused refugee status because they could allegedly relocate elsewhere within their countries. Januzi, an ethnic Albanian from Kosovo with depression and associated medical needs, was expected to relocate from Mitrovica to Pristina. The Court of Appeal rejected his Refugee Convention case in [2003] EWCA Civ 1188, while remitting a separate article 8 issue.

Hamid, Gaafar and Mohammed were black Africans from Darfur who had suffered, or would suffer, ethnic persecution involving militia whose conduct was encouraged, tolerated or insufficiently restrained by the Sudanese state. Their claims were rejected because relocation to Khartoum was considered available. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals in [2005] EWCA Civ 1219.

The common question was whether internal relocation must provide internationally accepted basic civil, political and socio-economic rights. The Sudanese appeals additionally raised the significance of state involvement in the persecution and the risks of return to camps for internally displaced persons.

1. Disposition. The House unanimously dismissed Mr Januzi’s appeal. It allowed the appeals of Messrs Hamid, Gaafar and Mohammed and remitted their cases to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. Lord Bingham delivered the leading speech. Lord Nicholls agreed fully with him; Lord Hope agreed on the legal principles and addressed their detailed application; Lord Carswell and Lord Mance agreed with both Lord Bingham and Lord Hope.

2. Internal relocation under the Refugee Convention. Per Lord Bingham, the definition in article 1A(2) of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees must be read as a whole, beginning with the agreed text. A claimant who can obtain protection and live reasonably in a safe part of the country is not outside that country owing to a well-founded fear of Convention persecution. Internal relocation must be a realistic and attainable option, not a theoretical refuge.

3. Reasonableness and undue harshness. Per Lord Bingham and Lord Hope, the question is whether the claimant can reach the proposed area without undue difficulty and lead a relatively normal life there without undue hardship, judged against conditions prevailing generally in the country of nationality. The place of relocation is not compared with the country of asylum or with an international standard of civil, political and socio-economic rights. The House approved the broad approach in E and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1032.

   Lord Hope emphasised that country-wide conditions are not themselves irrelevant. Threats to life, cruel or inhuman treatment, economic destitution, lack of subsistence or similarly severe deprivation may make relocation unduly harsh. A mere lowering of living standards or loss of economic opportunity will not ordinarily suffice.

4. State-linked persecution. Per Lord Bingham, there is no absolute rule or presumption that internal relocation is unavailable whenever the state sponsors, tolerates or fails to prevent persecution. The decision-maker must assess the nature and reach of the persecutors and the degree of state control. The closer the persecution is linked to a state capable of acting throughout its territory, the less likely another area will be safe. Localised or fragmented state power may permit the contrary conclusion.

5. Application. Per Lord Hope, the evidence justified the conclusion that Pristina was a realistic relocation option for Mr Januzi. His medical and socio-economic difficulties did not approach the required standard of undue harshness. The Sudanese determinations, by contrast, did not adequately examine the risks of camp life, serious violations of basic rights or forced return to Darfur. Those risks also required reconsideration under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

6. The House invited written submissions on costs within 14 days.

• House of Lords: In [2006] UKHL 5, unanimously dismissed Mr Januzi’s appeal, allowed the other three appeals and remitted those cases to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.
• Court of Appeal — Sudanese appeals: In [2005] EWCA Civ 1219, dismissed the appeals of Messrs Hamid, Gaafar and Mohammed, holding that no error of law had been shown in treating Khartoum as a potential place of relocation.
• Court of Appeal — Januzi: In [2003] EWCA Civ 1188, held that there was no basis for relief under the Refugee Convention, but remitted the separate article 8 issue.
• Immigration appellate tribunals: The Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal in Mr Januzi’s case. Adjudicators or immigration judges rejected the three Sudanese appellants’ claims on the basis that relocation to Khartoum would not be unduly harsh.