GM (Burundi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Failure to consider a material country-guidance decision or factual precedent may constitute an error of law. A generic risk cannot be established for an ethnic group without supporting evidence. Where localised risk is raised, national and local conditions must be considered, with reasons explaining why material evidence has not altered the conclusion. General insecurity caused by residual insurgency and government counter-activity does not, without more, amount to persecution or inhuman treatment. Internal relocation may defeat a protection claim where it is both safe and reasonable, assessed in light of the claimant’s personal circumstances.

The appellant, accepted as a Burundian Hutu, claimed asylum after arriving in the United Kingdom from Malawi. An adjudicator initially established his nationality and, after remittal, allowed his asylum and human-rights appeals on the basis of risk as a Hutu. On reconsideration, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal found errors of law, rejected a generic risk to Hutus, and held that internal relocation was available. The appeal concerned the need to consider country guidance, possible localised risk in Bujumbura, and whether relocation within Burundi was safe and reasonable.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Sedley gave the leading judgment. Lord Justices Rix and Waller agreed.

1. The AIT were entitled to find an error of law in the adjudicator’s failure to consider Mapesa [2002] UKIAT 01035. Whether treated as evidence or as a factual precedent, it was material to the assessment of risk. The adjudicator could not, without more, find a generic risk to all Burundian Hutus when the relevant authority indicated that Hutus as an ethnic group were not generally at risk in Burundi.

2. The circumstances required consideration of both national and local risks. A proper process of reasoning should explain, however briefly, why evidence capable of producing a different conclusion has not done so. The AIT’s treatment of local evidence was unsatisfactory, but the court did not need to decide whether that defect alone was fatal. The material did not demonstrate that a Hutu faced persecution in rural Bujumbura because of ethnicity. Insecurity caused by residual rebel activity and government counter-activity did not, by itself, constitute persecution under the Refugee Convention or inhuman treatment contrary to the ECHR.

3. The AIT’s contingent finding on internal relocation was sufficient to dispose of the appeal. Applying the approach identified in Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5, the tribunal addressed the two key questions of safety and reasonableness. Its conclusions were related to the appellant’s circumstances as a fit young single man with building skills, and to the availability of accommodation and work. The decision was evidence-based and did not use relocation merely as a makeweight.

4. Even assuming that the appellant would be unsafe in rural Bujumbura, the tribunal was entitled to conclude that relocation to Bujumbura City or another suitable province would not be unduly harsh. The appeal therefore failed on the internal-relocation ground.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2007] EWCA Civ 18, the appeal from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal was dismissed.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal — On reconsideration, the AIT found errors of law in the adjudicator’s determination, rejected the asylum and human-rights claims, and held that internal relocation within Burundi was available.