The Secretary of State for the Home Department v SB

Refugee status may be revoked where a refugee can now reasonably relocate within the country of nationality, provided the Secretary of State proves a significant and non-temporary change in circumstances. The cessation assessment remains strict and fact-sensitive.

Residence in an IDP camp does not, without more, establish a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. General living conditions must meet the high threshold in the relevant Article 3 jurisprudence, and the claimant’s individual circumstances require assessment.

The reasonableness of internal relocation is distinct from the Article 3 inquiry. It requires a fair assessment of the person’s circumstances, including support, skills, language, employment prospects and available financial assistance.

The claimant, a Somali national of Bajuni ethnicity who had been recognised as a refugee, was liable to deportation following criminal convictions. The Secretary of State revoked his refugee status under the Immigration Rules, contending that conditions had changed sufficiently for him to return to Somalia, including by relocation to Mogadishu.

The First-tier Tribunal allowed the claimant’s appeal on Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the ECHR. It held that refugee status could not cease solely because of changed conditions in one part of Somalia and that relocation to Mogadishu would be unsafe or unreasonable. The Article 8 decision was not challenged.

The central issues were whether internal relocation could in principle justify refugee-status cessation, whether country guidance established an Article 3 risk for a person likely to enter an IDP camp, and whether the relocation assessment was legally adequate.

1. The Secretary of State’s appeal was allowed in part. The First-tier Tribunal’s decisions on refugee-status revocation and Articles 2 and 3 were set aside. Those matters were remitted to the First-tier Tribunal. Its unchallenged decision allowing the appeal under Article 8 remained undisturbed.

2. The Tribunal was bound by Secretary of State for the Home Department v MS (Somalia) [2019] EWCA Civ 1345. A cessation decision may be based on the availability of reasonable internal relocation. The Secretary of State must prove that the relevant change is significant and non-temporary. The fact that counsel conceded the point in MS (Somalia) did not deprive the Court of Appeal’s judgment of authoritative force. The restrictive observations in R (Hoxha) v Special Adjudicator and Another [2005] UKHL 19 did not require a contrary result.

3. The First-tier Tribunal also erred in treating the country guidance in MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC) as establishing that a person likely to live in an IDP camp would thereby face Article 3 harm. The Court of Appeal’s construction in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Said [2016] EWCA Civ 442 had to be followed. General impoverished living conditions require the high threshold identified in D v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 43 and N v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 39. A claimant may nevertheless establish risk by showing that personal circumstances reach that threshold.

4. The Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal had not carried out the required individual assessment of whether relocation to Mogadishu would be unduly harsh. Lack of family support and unfamiliarity with the city were relevant but not determinative. It was necessary also to assess employment prospects, language abilities, the possibility of low-paid work, and financial assistance available through the Facilitated Returns Scheme. The Article 3 conclusion could not determine the separate reasonableness inquiry.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal in part. It set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s determinations on refugee-status revocation and Articles 2 and 3, and remitted those issues for re-decision.

• First-tier Tribunal: Allowed the claimant’s appeal under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the ECHR. The Article 8 determination was not challenged before the Upper Tribunal.