AK (Guinea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

When assessing whether internal relocation is reasonable, the tribunal must address whether the person can realistically subsist in the proposed place of relocation. Economic hardship alone will not normally establish a right to remain where the person’s prospects are no worse than those of the population generally. It may nevertheless be materially relevant where the person is exceptionally deprived of family assistance because the family remains in an area to which return would expose the person to persecution.

The appellant, a Guinean national who had arrived in the United Kingdom as an unaccompanied minor, challenged the dismissal of his asylum and human-rights claims. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal accepted that he would face risk in his home village but concluded that he could safely and reasonably relocate to Conakry. The appellant argued that the tribunal had failed to assess whether he could realistically support himself there, given his loss of contact with his family and the expert evidence concerning unemployment.

The Court of Appeal treated that issue as properly arguable. It also considered, but did not grant permission on, a challenge concerning the duration of the appellant’s relationship with his partner under Article 8.

1. Permission granted. The application was a renewed application for permission to appeal against the Tribunal’s second-stage reconsideration decision. The Court of Appeal did not determine the substantive asylum or human-rights appeal.
2. In assessing the reasonableness of internal relocation, a tribunal must consider whether the individual has a realistic prospect of subsistence in the proposed place of relocation. The mere fact that economic conditions are poor in the country concerned is insufficient where the person’s prospects would be no worse than those of others generally.
3. Economic subsistence may nevertheless be a material consideration where the individual is in a worse position than the community generally because family assistance is unavailable, and the family is located in an area to which the individual cannot safely return because of persecution. The tribunal had not addressed that issue despite accepting the appellant’s account and largely accepting the expert report.
4. The Article 8 ground, based on the tribunal’s reference to a relationship of six months rather than 18 months, did not provide a realistic prospect of success. The relationship was relatively short and had begun when the appellant knew that his position in the United Kingdom was precarious. If the Article 3 ground succeeded, however, all relevant circumstances would need to be considered in the final decision.

Order: Application granted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal granted on the arguable failure to assess the appellant’s ability to subsist in Conakry; permission was not granted on the Article 8 ground.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: on second-stage reconsideration, dismissed the asylum and human-rights claims. The first-stage reconsideration had identified a material error of law in the original tribunal decision.