XY v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum appeal, a tribunal’s failure to mention a particular risk factor is not a material error where its findings, read fairly, resolve the issue and the evidence cannot support a different outcome. Internal relocation requires an ordered inquiry: safety in the home area, safe access to it, and only then safety and undue hardship in the proposed alternative. Where the claimant identifies no material capable of showing undue hardship, a challenge to relocation will not succeed, particularly where country guidance supports relocation. Changed country conditions may also remove the practical need to decide relocation if safe return to the home area is now possible.

XY, a Tamil national of Sri Lanka, appealed against refusal of asylum and humanitarian protection. Immigration Judge Craig accepted his account as credible but found no real risk from the Sri Lankan authorities or the LTTE and dismissed his appeal. She also considered return to Colombo possible, although the civil war then obstructed travel to Jaffna. Senior Immigration Judge Warr, on reconsideration ordered by Senior Immigration Judge Goldstein, found no material error of law. Permission to appeal was granted on two issues: whether the tribunals had addressed risk arising from the appellant’s brother’s LTTE membership, and whether relocation to Colombo would be unduly harsh.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously.

1. Risk arising from the brother’s LTTE membership. Although Immigration Judge Craig did not expressly refer to the brother when addressing risk from the Sri Lankan authorities, her findings showed that the appellant faced no real risk from the security forces even at the height of the civil war. Nothing indicated that the authorities knew of the brother’s LTTE membership. The omission was therefore immaterial. Her separate reasoning that forced recruitment by the LTTE was unlikely in the Colombo area was satisfactory.
2. Internal relocation. The prior questions are whether the claimant can be safe in the home area and whether he can safely reach it. If both questions are answered affirmatively, relocation elsewhere does not arise. The original finding that the appellant could not safely reach Jaffna had been made while the civil war was continuing. Its end potentially removed the need to consider relocation to Colombo. In any event, the appellant identified no factual material capable of showing undue hardship in relocating to Colombo. The general conclusion in AN & SS Sri Lanka CG [2008] UKAIT 00063 supported the reasonableness of that relocation.
3. Other matters. The challenge concerning NA v United Kingdom was not pursued. The court accepted that the substance of the questions raised by an authority mattered rather than formal citation of it. Arden LJ agreed that the determination had adequately considered risk from the authorities, including the reference to perceived political opinion. The appeal was dismissed, with the appeal anonymised as XY.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal on reconsideration: Senior Immigration Judge Warr found no material error of law, following reconsideration ordered by Senior Immigration Judge Goldstein.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Immigration Judge Craig dismissed the appeal against refusal of asylum and humanitarian protection.