ASJ (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Internal relocation in a protection claim is determined by asking whether it would be unreasonable, in the sense of unduly harsh, to expect relocation within the country of origin. The inquiry is holistic and must cover all relevant circumstances concerning the claimant and the country, including resources, livelihood, remittances and family or clan support.

The decision-maker need not be sure that every disputed fact is true or exclude every possibility that an account may be true. Reasonable inferences and findings expressed as reasonably likely may be sufficient where grounded in the evidence. The threshold is stringent, but technical analysis of burden and standard of proof should not displace the holistic assessment.

The appellant, a Somali national from Barawe, challenged the Upper Tribunal’s decision to dismiss his protection appeal. The Upper Tribunal accepted that return to Barawe was unsafe but concluded that relocation to Mogadishu would not be unreasonable or unduly harsh. It relied on likely remittances, clan support and diaspora networks, despite the appellant’s limited resources and lack of close relatives in Somalia.

The appeal alleged that the Upper Tribunal had applied the wrong standard of proof when assessing available support. The respondent also argued that burden and standard of proof were not apt to internal relocation. The central issue was the proper approach to evaluating internal relocation and disputed evidence about support on return.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lewis LJ gave the judgment, with Davis LJ and Coulson LJ agreeing.

1. Applicable test. The question is whether it would be unreasonable, in the sense of unduly harsh, to expect a person claiming protection to relocate within the country of origin. The decision-maker must make a holistic assessment of all relevant circumstances concerning the claimant and the country. The approach in Januzi ([2006] UKH 5), AH (Sudan) ([2007] UKHL 49), SC (Jamaica) ([2022] UKSC 15) and AS (Afghanistan) ([2019] EWCA Civ 873) requires attention to personal circumstances, prevailing conditions, resources, livelihood, remittances and available support. The threshold is high.
2. Application. The Upper Tribunal considered the appellant’s minority-clan status, lack of work experience, limited resources, absence of close relatives in Somalia, diaspora links and the conditions in Mogadishu. Applying MOJ & Others (Return to Mogadishu) ([2014] UKUT 00442) and OA (Somalia) CG ([2022] UKUT 003), it was entitled to infer from the funding of journeys to the United Kingdom, the appellant’s incomplete account and Somali cultural obligations that remittances and some clan support were reasonably likely to be available.
3. Evidence and standard. The Upper Tribunal was not required to be sure that the appellant’s account was untrue or to exclude every possibility that it was true. It could use reasonable inferences and findings expressed as reasonably likely. Demirkaya ([1999] Imm AR 498) did not establish a general rule against that language. Karanakaran ([2000] 3 All E.R 449) did not impose strict proof requirements for internal relocation, and KV (Sri Lanka) ([2019] 1 WLR 1849) concerned a different evidential issue.
4. Respondent’s notice. It was unnecessary to determine conclusively whether burden and standard of proof arise in internal relocation. Lewis LJ nevertheless considered that internal relocation is an aspect of whether a fear of persecution is well-founded under Article 1A of the Refugee Convention, so that, strictly, the claimant bears the burden of showing to a reasonable degree of likelihood that relocation would be unduly harsh. In practice, the issue is resolved through the holistic assessment.

The Upper Tribunal identified the correct question, considered the relevant circumstances and reached a conclusion open to it on the evidence. Its decision was therefore upheld.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal against the Upper Tribunal’s decision: [2025] EWCA Civ 282.
2. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and remade the decision, dismissing the protection appeal. The decision was promulgated on 14 June 2022.
3. First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of asylum or humanitarian protection.
4. Secretary of State for the Home Department refused the appellant’s protection claim.