CM (Kenya) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an internal-relocation assessment, a tribunal must consider the general circumstances in the proposed place and the applicant’s personal circumstances as a whole, including whether the applicant can survive economically. It need not refer expressly to every item of expert or objective evidence, or explain in detail why each expert opinion is rejected, if its reasoning shows that the evidence was considered and the conclusion is reasonably open on the evidence. Findings may be implicit where the reasoning addresses the applicant’s characteristics and circumstances. Country guidance may be applied despite contrary expert evidence where the evidence gives no sufficient ground for departure. An Article 8 challenge dependent on an unsuccessful internal-relocation challenge will disclose no arguable legal error.

The appellant, a Kenyan woman, claimed asylum in the United Kingdom on the basis of fear of female genital mutilation. On reconsideration in April 2006, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal accepted that she was at risk in her home area but found that internal relocation to Nairobi was available. In February 2007, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and remitted the issue of relocation. On a fresh decision dated 29 November 2007, the Immigration Judge dismissed the asylum and Article 8 claims. The appellant sought permission to appeal, alleging inadequate consideration of expert and objective evidence, a misunderstanding of the country guidance, and an erroneous Article 8 conclusion.

The Court of Appeal, per Richards LJ, refused permission to appeal. The formal order was: Application refused.

1. Internal relocation framework. The Immigration Judge was entitled to work within the framework of SSHD v AH (Sudan) [2007] UKHL 49 and to have regard to FK (FGM Risk and Relocation) Kenya CG [2007] UKAIT 00041. The relevant question was whether relocation to Nairobi would be unreasonable or unduly harsh, assessed by reference to the general circumstances prevailing there and the applicant’s personal circumstances, including her ability to survive economically.
2. Evidence and reasoning. The Immigration Judge had recorded the submissions identifying relevant passages in the expert reports and had stated that he had taken account of all the evidence. His conclusion that the applicant, as an adult with qualifications, intelligence and adaptability, could relocate and survive economically was reasonably open to him. The reasoning also implicitly rejected the asserted risks of prostitution, trafficking and other degrading treatment. A tribunal is not required to refer specifically to every item of evidence or explain in detail why each expert opinion is rejected where the decision gives sufficient reasons.
3. Country guidance. The wording that the expert evidence did not provide grounds to override country guidance was inappropriate, but the underlying reasoning was valid. The evidence arguably contrary to FK did not justify departing from that guidance. The Immigration Judge had quoted and applied the wider guidance requiring consideration of general conditions and the applicant’s personal circumstances.
4. Article 8. The Article 8 challenge depended on establishing a basic flaw in the internal-relocation assessment. Since no such flaw existed, the Immigration Judge was entitled to conclude that removal would not be disproportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In the present judgment, permission to appeal was refused. The citation is [2008] EWCA Civ 568.
• Court of Appeal — In February 2007, an appeal against the April 2006 reconsideration decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal was allowed, and the issue of relocation to Nairobi was remitted.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal — On 29 November 2007, the Immigration Judge dismissed the appellant’s asylum and Article 8 claims. This was the decision challenged before the Court of Appeal.