The claimants sought to challenge the refusals of asylum in each case based upon the possibility of internal relocation. They said that such internal relocation would place them in areas where they could not be expected to live without undue harshness.
Held: Where relocation was possible in the country from which the asylum applicant fled, the living conditions in the area to which they were expected to relocate were not generally relevant, save to the extent that the claimant’s human rights would be likely to be infringed in that area.
Lord Bingham: ‘The decision-maker, taking account of all relevant circumstances pertaining to the claimant and his country of origin, must decide whether it is reasonable to expect the claimant to relocate or whether it would be unduly harsh to expect him to do so . . There is, as Simon Brown LJ aptly observed in Svazas v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2002] 1 WLR 1891, para 55, a spectrum of cases. The decision-maker must do his best to decide, on such material as is available, where on the spectrum the particular case falls. . All must depend on a fair assessment of the relevant facts.’
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Carswell, Lord Mance
Citations:
[2006] 2 WLR 397, [2006] 2 AC 426, [2006] UKHL 5, Times 15-Feb-2006
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Svazas v The Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 31-Jan-2002
The two applicants appealed refusal of their applications for asylum. They had been former members of the communist party in Lithuania. Both had experienced persecution. The IAT had found that the constitution guaranteed them protection. Though they . .
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v K, Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought asylum, fearing persecution as members of a social group. The fear of persecution had been found to be well founded, but that persecution was seen not to arise from membership of a particular social group.
Held: The . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH (Sudan) and others HL 14-Nov-2007
The three respondents had fled persecution in Darfur. They sought asylum which was refused, and they now appealed. It was argued that whilst they had a well founded fear of persecution in Dhafur, that would not apply if they returned to Khartoum. . .
Cited – HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for The Home Department; HT (Cameroon) v Same SC 7-Jul-2010
The claimants sought to prevent their removal and return to their countries of origin saying that as practising homosexuals they would face discrimination and persecution. They appealed against a judgment saying that they could avoid persecution by . .
Cited – ST Eritrea, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Mar-2012
The Tribunal had confirmed the appellant’s refugee status, but the respondent had ordered nevertheless that she be returned. The judge’s order setting aside that decision had been overturned in the Court of Appeal.
Held: The claimant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238531
