AA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Internal relocation requires an assessment of all relevant circumstances concerning the claimant and the country of origin. The question is whether it would be reasonable to expect relocation, or whether doing so would be unduly harsh. The inquiry is not confined to whether living conditions fall below basic civil, political or socio-economic norms. Nor is undue harshness equivalent to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under article three of the ECHR.

The decision-maker should identify the source of risk and consider whether it extends to the proposed area. Independent judicial research should not be undertaken without giving the parties an opportunity to comment. The tribunal’s findings were open to it, so permission to appeal was refused.

The appellant, an Iraqi Sunni Muslim, claimed asylum after being kidnapped in Baghdad because of his association with his father, a prominent general and Ba’ath party member. Risk in Baghdad was accepted. On stage 2 reconsideration, Immigration Judge Vaudin d’Imecourt found that the appellant could reasonably relocate to Samarra or other Sunni-dominated areas of Iraq.

The appellant renewed his application for permission to appeal, alleging a misdirection on internal relocation, failure to address material evidence, and improper reliance on the judge’s own Google research. The central issue was whether those complaints disclosed an arguable error of law.

Application refused. Lord Justice Toulson held that the tribunal had not materially misdirected itself on the law of internal relocation.

1. The applicable test, drawn from Januzi v SSHD [2006] UKHL 5 and referred to alongside SSHD v AH & Ors [2007] UKHL 49, required the decision-maker to consider all relevant circumstances relating to the claimant and the country of origin. The question was whether relocation would be reasonable or whether it would be unduly harsh to expect it.
2. The reference to conditions threatening the claimant’s most basic human rights did not confine the test to utter destitution or cruel or inhuman treatment. The internal-relocation inquiry was not to be equated with the threshold for a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under article three of the ECHR.
3. The proper starting point was to identify the source of the risk. Here, the risk in Baghdad arose from possible reprisals connected with the appellant’s father and the belief that the appellant might know his whereabouts. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that the risk did not extend to the proposed Sunni areas.
4. There was valid criticism of the judge’s independent Google research. A judge should not conduct such research. If further information appears necessary, the parties should be notified and given an opportunity to comment. Nevertheless, the information was not shown to be inaccurate and no material prejudice or error of law followed.
5. The remaining complaints challenged the weight given to evidence. The tribunal’s conclusions were open to it on the material before it and did not establish an arguable error of law. The renewed application for permission to appeal was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 9 July 2008, refused the renewed application for permission to appeal: [2008] EWCA Civ 923.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Immigration Judge Vaudin d’Imecourt dismissed the appellant’s appeal on stage 2 reconsideration, finding that internal relocation within Iraq was available.