AM v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where a return route is identified, its safety forms part of entitlement to international protection if there is a proper evidential basis for raising the issue. A reference to a cogent argument does not impose a preliminary requirement for cogent evidence.

Where an appellant's personal account has been comprehensively rejected, the risk assessment must proceed principally from reliable general country evidence and the accepted features of the appellant's profile. Generalised or indiscriminate violence must be at a sufficiently high level to create a real risk to life or person merely through presence on the route.

The appellant, a Somali national, appealed against a deportation order made after his conviction for possessing a false identity document with intent. He claimed asylum, humanitarian protection and protection under Article 3 on the basis of risks in Somalia.

The First-tier Tribunal rejected his account of minority-clan membership and of adverse interest from Al Shabaab. It dismissed his appeal, including on the basis that he could safely travel from Mogadishu to his home area of Afgoye.

Permission was granted on the limited issue whether the First-tier Tribunal had adequately addressed risk on the route of return. The Upper Tribunal held that the reasons on that issue were inadequate, set aside that part of the decision, and remade the appeal on further country and expert evidence.

1. The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law. Its brief conclusion that the appellant could safely reach Afgoye did not show that it had evaluated the relevant background evidence or its bearing on the route of return.

2. On remaking the decision, the Tribunal explained HH (Somalia) v Secretary of State [2010] EWCA Civ 426. The Court of Appeal's reference to a cogent argument did not establish a threshold requirement for cogent evidence. It meant that route safety need only be considered where there is a proper evidential basis for the issue. That basis existed here because the proposed route from Mogadishu Airport to Afgoye was identified and the general evidence raised a real issue about safety.

3. Applying MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State [2010] UKSC 49, the Tribunal treated the comprehensive adverse credibility findings as highly material. It assessed risk by reference to the accepted facts: the appellant was a Southern Somali whose home area was Afgoye, who had previously travelled that route, and who had an uncle able to assist him.

4. The evidence showed that travel from Mogadishu Airport, within Mogadishu, and through the Afgoye corridor occurred with frequency. Checkpoints and the volatile security situation created risks, but the evidence did not establish that all travellers, or this appellant, faced a real risk. His rejected account of prior contact with Al Shabaab could not supply a particular risk profile. He could comply with Al Shabaab's rules and obtain modest assistance to meet foreseeable checkpoint demands.

5. Generalised or indiscriminate violence on the route was not at such a level that the appellant would face a real risk to life or person solely by travelling from Mogadishu to Afgoye. The appeal was remade and dismissed on asylum, humanitarian protection and human-rights grounds.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Held that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law on the adequacy of its route-of-return reasoning, set aside the decision on that issue, and remade the appeal by dismissing it: [2011] UKUT 54 (IAC).
• First-tier Tribunal: Dismissed the appeal against the deportation order. Its findings rejecting the appellant's claimed minority-clan membership and claimed adverse interest from Al Shabaab were not challenged before the Upper Tribunal.