KS (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an internal-relocation case, the decision-maker must consider all relevant circumstances relating to the claimant and the proposed area. The question is whether relocation would be reasonable or unduly harsh. The assessment is holistic and fact-sensitive. An appellate court should distinguish an error of law from disagreement with a specialist tribunal’s factual evaluation. It should also be slow to infer from silence that a relevant matter was ignored. A tribunal may sufficiently explain its decision by adopting material reasoning in the refusal letter, provided its reasons show that the relevant risks, personal circumstances and practical consequences were considered. Appeal dismissed.

An Iranian national claimed asylum after fleeing alleged family threats and a proposed forced marriage. The Secretary of State considered that she could safely and reasonably relocate to Tehran. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed her appeal on 6 July 2015, accepting that she might face family ill-treatment but finding that internal relocation was available. The Upper Tribunal dismissed a further appeal on 22 February 2016. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was limited to internal relocation. The issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal had applied the correct principles or had failed adequately to consider relevant matters.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Newey gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Hamblen agreeing.

1. The applicable framework was Rule 339O in Part 11 of the Immigration Rules. Consistently with Januzi v Home Secretary [2006] UKHL 5 and AH (Sudan) v Home Secretary [2007] UKHL 49, the decision-maker had to consider the general circumstances in the proposed area together with the claimant’s personal circumstances. The question was whether it was reasonable to expect relocation or whether relocation would be unduly harsh.
2. The inquiry was holistic. The appellate court’s function was to correct errors of law, not to re-evaluate facts. Following MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 49 and AH (Sudan), the court should not characterise factual disagreement as legal error and should be slow to infer that a relevant matter was ignored merely because it was not expressly mentioned.
3. The First-tier Tribunal had considered whether the appellant would be safe from her father and brothers in Tehran, whether she would face difficulty as a failed asylum seeker, her ability to move freely, the problems associated with being a single woman, and her ability to work. Its agreement with the material reasoning in the refusal letter was sufficient to explain its conclusions. The Tribunal was entitled to find that any difficulties were not insuperable and that she could work as a hairdresser or beautician, avoiding destitution or subsistence below an adequate level.
4. The appeal amounted to disagreement with the First-tier Tribunal’s factual assessment. There was no clear misdirection in law and the reasoning was adequately explained. The Upper Tribunal was right to uphold the decision. Appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the appeal and upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision: [2019] EWCA Civ 6.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — dismissed the appeal from the First-tier Tribunal on 22 February 2016.
• First-tier Tribunal — dismissed the challenge to the refusal of asylum and leave to remain on 6 July 2015.