AB (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The lawfulness of internal relocation turns on whether, considering all relevant circumstances of the claimant and the country of origin, it is reasonable to expect relocation or unduly harsh. Decision-makers need not use a prescribed phrase such as “relatively normal life”, follow a fixed sequence, or give priority to the claimant’s former way of life or country conditions. They should address material factors and, where appropriate, assess them cumulatively. “Virtual destitution” is not a substitute for the general test. Past persecution does not, without more, establish persecution for membership of a particular social group.

The appellant had suffered domestic and gang-related violence in Jamaica. Immigration Judge Tiffen allowed her asylum appeal in 2005. Following reconsideration, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal found an error of law and, at the second stage, dismissed the appeal after finding that she could safely relocate elsewhere in Jamaica without relocation being unreasonable or unduly harsh.

The appeal concerned whether the first-stage error finding was justified and whether the Tribunal had misapplied the internal-relocation test by failing to ask whether the appellant could lead a relatively normal life, considering her psychological condition, lack of social welfare, alleged need for concealment and her daughter’s circumstances.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal’s reconsideration decision disclosed no error of law.
2. At the first stage of reconsideration, Immigration Judge Tiffen had erred in relying on Atkinson v SSHD [2004] EWCA Civ 846. That decision concerned certification of whether an asylum claim was clearly unfounded, rather than the substantive merits of the claim. The Judge had also relied, in effect by hearsay, on discussion of an expert report which she had not seen, failed to refer to the latest CIPU report despite saying that it had been considered, and mischaracterised the proposed particular social group as women perceived to be informers and unprotected by the state. Past violence capable of amounting to persecution did not itself establish persecution for membership of a qualifying particular social group. The first-stage reconsideration was therefore correctly ordered and undertaken.
3. The Tribunal applied the correct internal-relocation approach stated in Januzi v Secretary of State [2005] UKHL 5 and explained in AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State [2007] UKHL 49. The decision-maker must assess all relevant circumstances pertaining to the claimant and the country of origin and decide whether relocation would be reasonable or unduly harsh. There is no requirement to use the expression relatively normal life, give priority to the claimant’s former way of life, or give priority to conditions generally prevailing in the country. The inquiry is fact-sensitive.
4. Where several factors are relied upon, they may be considered separately but must also be assessed cumulatively. The Tribunal addressed social welfare, psychological vulnerability, the alleged risks of being labelled a deportee, and the circumstances of the appellant and her daughter. Its reference to virtual destitution was shorthand for relevant economic guidance, not a replacement for the general test of unreasonableness or undue harshness.
5. The Tribunal’s findings that relocation outside the Kingston Metropolitan Area would remove the risk of persecution and would not be unduly harsh were findings on the evidence. The concealment point was adequately addressed through its consideration of psychological vulnerability and safety. A challenge directed only to factual findings could not establish an error of law. The Tribunal’s dismissal of the asylum, humanitarian protection and human-rights claims therefore stood.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2008] EWCA Civ 784, dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s reconsideration decision.
2. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: In AB (Protection: Criminal Gangs) (Internal Relocation) Jamaica CG [2007] UKAIT 18, found that the appellant would not face a real risk of persecution after relocation elsewhere in Jamaica and that relocation would not be unreasonable or unduly harsh. It dismissed the asylum, humanitarian protection and human-rights claims.
3. Immigration Judge Tiffen: Allowed the appellant’s asylum appeal in 2005. On the respondent’s application, reconsideration was ordered, and the first-stage reconsideration found material errors of law.