JK (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where an adjudicator determines whether an asylum claimant can internally relocate, the conclusion must be supported by evidence and adequate reasons. A bare statement that collective centres or displaced persons’ camps have poor conditions does not establish that relocation would be unduly harsh.

The assessment must address the claimant’s individual circumstances, including language, skills, employment prospects, health and the extent to which any personal risk is likely to be known outside the home area. The governing question is whether relocation is unreasonable or unduly harsh, including whether the claimant has a real possibility of economic survival in the proposed area: [2006] UKHL 5.

The appellant, a Kosovan Roma national, claimed asylum after leaving Kosovo. An immigration adjudicator accepted that he faced persecution in his home village and allowed his appeal on asylum and human rights grounds. She held that internal relocation was not viable because he would probably have to live in collective centres or displaced persons’ camps with poor conditions.

On the Secretary of State’s appeal, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal held at the first-stage reconsideration that the adjudicator had made a material error of law. At the second stage, it found that the appellant could relocate elsewhere in Kosovo. The appellant appealed, contending that the adjudicator’s reasons were adequate and that the Tribunal had erred. The central issue was whether the internal-relocation assessment disclosed an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice Wall, with whom Richards and Lawrence Collins LJJ agreed, held that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal had correctly identified a material error of law in the adjudicator’s treatment of internal relocation. Its second-stage conclusion that the appellant could relocate disclosed no error of law.

2. Although the Secretary of State’s refusal letter had not raised internal relocation, the issue necessarily arose once the adjudicator found that the appellant could not return to his home village. Having chosen to decide it, the adjudicator had to decide it lawfully. Her conclusion had to rest on relevant material and adequate reasons.

3. The adjudicator’s reference to poor and adverse conditions in collective centres and displaced persons’ camps was a conclusion, not reasoning which established undue harshness for this claimant. She had also failed to address material individual circumstances. Those included his fluency in Albanian and Serbo-Croat, metalworking skill, prior employment, good health, and the absence of evidence that his late wife’s Serbian ethnicity would be known outside his home area.

4. The Tribunal’s assessment accorded with the internal-relocation guidance in [2006] UKHL 5. The decisive inquiry was whether relocation would be unreasonable or unduly harsh for the individual, including whether there was a real possibility of economic survival. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the appellant’s skills and circumstances meant that relocation elsewhere in Kosovo would not be unduly harsh.

5. The country guidance concerning risks to parties in a mixed marriage did not govern this case, because the appellant’s Serbian wife had died. The Tribunal’s reasons were unimpeachable and its dismissal of the asylum appeal stood.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By [2007] EWCA Civ 1321, dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal’s decision.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: At the first-stage reconsideration, held that the adjudicator had made a material error of law on internal relocation. At the second stage, allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal and dismissed the asylum and humanitarian-protection claim.

• Immigration adjudicator: Allowed the appellant’s appeal on asylum and human rights grounds, finding a well-founded fear in his home area and that internal relocation would be unduly harsh.