SA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A decision-maker assessing protection against non-state persecution must consider both the general effectiveness of the receiving state's protective system and whether the claimant's particular circumstances require protection which the authorities are unlikely to provide.

Past persecution and direct threats are a serious indication of future risk unless good reasons show that they will not recur. Internal relocation is not a viable alternative where safety can be achieved only by requiring a political activist to live in hiding, political exile, or to abandon normal and visible political activity and legitimate grievances.

The appellant, a Pakistani national and active supporter of the PMLQ, appealed against Immigration Judge Morrow's dismissal of his asylum appeal. The judge had accepted his account of attacks by political opponents, the destruction of his businesses, the murder of his politically prominent brother, subsequent threats, and an assault on his son.

The Immigration Judge nevertheless found that adequate police protection would be available in Rawalpindi and, alternatively, that the appellant could relocate elsewhere in Pakistan. The Upper Tribunal considered whether those conclusions properly addressed the appellant's individual circumstances, the effect of past persecution, and whether internal relocation was reasonable for an active political figure.

1. Appeal allowed. The Immigration Judge materially erred in law. The unchallenged evidence established past persecution, a continuing real risk of serious harm from political opponents, and inadequate protection in the appellant's home area.

2. Although general country protection remained relevant, the decisive inquiry was whether the authorities would give this appellant the additional protection reasonably required by his particular circumstances. The judge failed to assess the appellant's vulnerability as a member of a political family and his own substantial profile as an active PMLQ worker. The judge also failed to give proper weight to accepted evidence of partisan and ineffective local policing after repeated attacks, destruction of property, the murder of the appellant's brother, threats and intimidation.

3. Under Immigration Rules HC 395, paragraph 339K, past persecution or direct threats were a serious indication of future risk unless good reasons showed that the harm would not be repeated. There were no such reasons. The evidence instead indicated that the political situation had become more violent and that local police would continue to side with the PPP.

4. Internal relocation was not reasonable. The appellant's temporary moves after his brother's murder involved moving to avoid detection, and threats continued even while he was in Islamabad. He could be safe elsewhere only by abandoning active political involvement and the pursuit of legitimate complaints, or by living in hiding or political exile. That was incompatible with the internal-relocation principle, paragraph 339O and the approach illustrated by R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex p Jonah [1985] Imm AR 7 and HJ (Iran) [2010] UKSC 31.

5. The Upper Tribunal set aside the Immigration Judge's decision and remade it by allowing the appellant's appeal.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Allowed the appeal, set aside Immigration Judge Morrow's determination, and remade the decision in the appellant's favour.
• First-tier immigration decision: Immigration Judge Morrow dismissed the appeal in a determination notified on 14 October 2009, finding sufficient protection and, alternatively, a viable internal-relocation option.