AI (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where an asylum claimant has suffered persecution in a home area but is said to be able to relocate internally, the feasibility of safe relocation must be assessed in light of the return process. A real risk that the claimant will be identified, interrogated or persecuted at the airport before reaching the proposed place of relocation may make internal relocation unavailable. The Court of Appeal treated materially identical circumstances in SD (Turkey) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 1032 as sufficient to make the proposed appeal arguable and granted permission to appeal.

The applicant, a Turkish citizen and Alevi Kurd, claimed asylum after entering the United Kingdom clandestinely. The Immigration Judge accepted that she faced a real risk of persecution or article 3 ill-treatment in her home area, but concluded that she could safely relocate elsewhere in Turkey. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, in case AA/00401/2006, had found material errors of law in the earlier decision and the matter was reconsidered afresh.

The Senior Immigration Judge made no order on reconsideration. Hallett LJ refused permission on the papers, considering that there was no reasonable prospect of successfully challenging the finding on internal relocation. On renewal, the central issue was whether the changing circumstances in Turkey, and the risk arising during return through Istanbul airport, made internal relocation impossible or unsafe for a person previously persecuted in the home area.

1. Permission granted. The renewed application was arguable because the applicant’s circumstances were indistinguishable from those considered in SD (Turkey) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 1032.
2. Internal relocation cannot be assessed solely by considering conditions at the proposed destination. The practical process of return must also be considered where the claimant must pass through an airport at which identity and travel documents may be examined and the claimant may be interrogated.
3. In the case of an Alevi Kurd previously persecuted in the home area, there was an arguable real risk that information obtained through the emergency documentation process, or otherwise available to the Turkish authorities, would lead to interrogation at Istanbul airport. The claimant might then be unable to reach the proposed place of relocation and might instead fall back into the hands of the security forces.
4. The judge accepted that the present case was materially indistinguishable from SD. The issue was not merely whether Istanbul or another destination was relatively safe, but whether the claimant could reach that destination without facing a real risk on return.
5. The judge recorded information, given in good faith, that the appeal in SD had subsequently been allowed. Although the transcript was unavailable, that information strengthened the basis for granting permission. Order: application granted.

1. Court of Appeal: Hallett LJ refused permission on the papers. On renewal, Forbes J granted permission because the case was materially indistinguishable from SD (Turkey) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 1032.
2. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: found material errors of law in the first decision and directed that the matter be reconsidered.
3. Senior Immigration Judge: made no order on the reconsideration application.
4. Immigration Judge: on fresh reconsideration, accepted a real risk of persecution or article 3 ill-treatment in the home area but found that internal relocation was available.