Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors (consolidated appeals: Hamid, Gaafar, Mohammed)

The appeals concerned the application of the internal relocation (internal flight) alternative under article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol. The House held that the reasonableness of internal relocation is to be judged by whether it would be "unduly harsh" for the claimant to be expected to move to the proposed place of relocation within his country of nationality, judged by the standards prevailing in that country and by reference to the Convention definition in article 1A(2). The court rejected a rule that relocation is only reasonable if the place of relocation meets basic international norms of civil, political and socio-economic human rights (the Hathaway/New Zealand approach). Where the persecutor is the State or its agents the decision‑maker must assess whether the State’s reach and control make internal relocation unrealistic; there is no absolute presumption either way. Applying those principles the House dismissed Januzi’s appeal (relocation to Pristina reasonable) but allowed the appeals of Hamid, Gaafar and Mohammed and remitted those three cases to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for further consideration of internal relocation and Convention/Article 3 risks.

The appellants are nationals who fled parts of their countries where they had well‑founded fears of persecution and claimed asylum in the United Kingdom. The common legal issue was whether, in assessing the "reasonableness" or "undue harshness" of internal relocation under article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention, decision‑makers should have regard to any shortfall, at the place of relocation, in civil, political and socio‑economic human rights compared with international standards.

The cases and procedural history:

• Gzim Januzi, an ethnic Albanian from Mitrovica in Kosovo, had his asylum claim refused on the basis that he could relocate to Pristina. The Immigration Adjudicator allowed his appeal, the Tribunal and subsequently the Court of Appeal found relocation reasonable. The matter reached the House of Lords by appeal.
• Abdoulazaz Hamid, Ibrahim Mohammed Gaafar and Noureldeain Zakaria Mohammed (all Darfurians) had claims refused on the basis that they could relocate to Khartoum. Their claims passed through adjudicators and the Tribunal; the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals and the matters were referred to the House of Lords under section 103C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

Relief sought: recognition as refugees under article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention and related protections; in some cases parallel Human Rights Act/ECHR (articles 3 and 8) issues were pursued or reserved.

Issues framed by the court:

• Is the correct test for internal relocation whether the proposed place of relocation meets minimum international human rights standards (civil, political and socio‑economic), so that relocation is unreasonable where it does not?
• How should decision‑makers treat internal relocation where the persecution feared is by the State or with its connivance?

Reasoning and conclusions:

• The House emphasised that the Refugee Convention must be read as an international instrument and that the definition in article 1A(2) is the starting point. The court identified three elements in the definition relevant to internal relocation and confirmed that relocation is part of the Convention analysis where a person can reasonably be expected to move within his country to a place where he would have no well‑founded fear of persecution.
• The court rejected importing a general requirement that the place of relocation must meet basic international norms of civil, political and socio‑economic human rights. That approach is not supported by the Convention text, by uniform state practice or by EU Directive 2004/83/EC (which permits a lower standard), and would have anomalous consequences of enabling escape from endemic poverty as if it were persecution. Instead, the proper test is whether, judged by the standards prevailing in the country of nationality, the claimant can lead a relatively normal life in the relocation area without facing undue hardship. The UNHCR Guidelines (2003) were cited as helpful practical guidance.
• Where the persecutor is the State or state agents, there is no absolute presumption that internal relocation is unavailable; rather the decision‑maker must evaluate, on the facts, whether the State’s control makes it unreasonable to expect internal relocation.

Application: the House dismissed Januzi’s appeal because Pristina was a realistic relocation option and the medical evidence did not establish that return would be unduly harsh; the appeals of Hamid, Gaafar and Mohammed were allowed and remitted to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for detailed reassessment of relocation and Article 3/ECHR and humanitarian considerations.

Allowed in part. The House held that the reasonableness of internal relocation under article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention is to be judged by whether it would be 'unduly harsh' for the claimant to relocate, assessed against standards prevailing in the claimant's country rather than by comparing to international human rights norms. Where persecution is state‑sanctioned or state agents are the persecutors, decision‑makers must assess on the facts whether internal relocation is realistic. Applying these principles, Januzi's appeal was dismissed (relocation to Pristina reasonable) while the appeals of Hamid, Gaafar and Mohammed were allowed and remitted to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for further consideration.

Appeals from determinations of adjudicators and the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal; matters were before the Court of Appeal in Januzi (see [2003] EWCA Civ 1188) and in the Darfur appellants (see [2005] EWCA Civ 1219). The House of Lords heard consolidated appeals and delivered judgment [2006] UKHL 5.