MF v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Internal relocation in an asylum claim based on a blood feud is a fact-sensitive inquiry. The tribunal must assess whether the risk extends beyond the local area and whether the aggressor clan can trace the applicant. The clan’s geographical and political reach, including government connections, may be relevant. Expert evidence may illuminate general conditions, but the tribunal must determine applicant-specific risk; opinions based only on general knowledge may properly receive little or no weight. Where a minor’s relocation depends on parental support, the tribunal may assume reasonable conduct absent contrary evidence. Under Rule 339L of the Immigration Rules, uncorroborated matters need not be confirmed only if all listed conditions are met. The court left open whether that rule extends to credible second-hand evidence involving evaluative judgment.

The appellant, an Albanian national, claimed asylum aged 15½ after alleging that he was at risk from a blood feud. The First-tier Tribunal accepted his account but dismissed the appeal, finding that he could relocate to Tirana and receive support from his mother. The Upper Tribunal identified an error in the first decision, considered further evidence, remade the decision and dismissed the appeal.

In the Court of Appeal, the appellant challenged the treatment of expert evidence, the assumption that his mother would relocate, and the application of Rule 339L of the Immigration Rules. The central issues were whether internal relocation was safe and reasonable and whether his evidence about the M family’s reach could be accepted without corroboration.

1. Disposition. Moore-Bick LJ delivered the judgment, with Black LJ and Briggs LJ agreeing. The appeal was dismissed.
2. Internal relocation and expert evidence. The guidance in EH (Blood Feuds) Albania CG [2012] UKUT 00348 (IAC) showed that internal relocation depended on the aggressor clan’s reach, influence, ability to locate the applicant and the factual circumstances of the proposed relocation. The fact-finding tribunal, not the expert, had to decide whether the applicant would face risk on return. Expert evidence could provide valuable insight into general conditions, but an expert should not determine applicant-specific questions, such as safe relocation or family support, on the basis only of general knowledge. Dr Young’s opinions about the appellant and his mother lacked specific evidential foundations and were properly given little weight.
3. The appellant’s mother. If there had been evidence that the mother was unwilling to move to Tirana, the appellant could argue that living there as a minor without her support would be unduly harsh, even if it would be reasonable for her to move. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, however, the tribunal was entitled to proceed on the basis that she would act reasonably and join him if support was needed.
4. Rule 339L. The rule dispenses with the need for confirmation of unsupported aspects of an account only where all five conditions are satisfied. Although the appellant satisfied conditions (i), (iii), (iv) and (v), he failed condition (ii). His only information about the M family’s reach and determination came from his mother, who had not provided a statement and whose evidence was not explained. The appellant therefore had not submitted all material factors at his disposal.
5. Unresolved issue. It was unnecessary to decide whether, even where Rule 339L’s conditions are satisfied, the rule requires acceptance of credible second-hand evidence involving evaluative judgment. That question was left open.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In MF v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 902, the appeal from the Upper Tribunal was dismissed.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Kekić identified an error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s approach to internal relocation and adjourned the matter for further evidence. On remaking the decision, the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The case number was AA/05637/2012.
• First-tier Tribunal — The tribunal accepted the appellant’s account but dismissed the appeal on the basis that he could relocate safely to Tirana, with support from his mother.