Court of Appeal on internal relocation in Sudan
The UK Court of Appeal has decided an important case on whether people a risk of persecution in Darfur could be expected to relocate to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum.
A person who is at risk of persecution within the meaning of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees in one part of their country of origin must show that they cannot relocate to another part of their country because it would be ‘unduly harsh’ or ‘unreasonable’ to expect them to do so. In the case (AH, IG & NM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 297, also known as ‘AH(Sudan)’ or ‘HGM’), the Court of Appeal looked at the law on internal relocation and applied it to the situation in Sudan.
The Court of Appeal was clear that the circumstances in which it would be unduly harsh to expect a person to relocate to another part of their country of origin were not limited to circumstances in which they would face a breach of their right to life or of the prohibition on torture inhuman or degrading treatment in the place of relocation. Instead it must be possible to lead a ‘relatively normal life’ according to the standards of the person’s country in the place of relocation. It is necessary to compare the conditions in the proposed place of relocation (the Court of Appeal calls this the ‘safe haven’) and those in the place where the person habitually lived. The court must look at the characteristics of the person seeking asylum and the nature of his or her life in the place where s/he habitually lived.
Applying this analysis of the law to the three cases, the Court of Appeal found in this case that a subsistence farmer in Darfur would not be leading a relatively normal life in the camps in Khartoum. Not only was there the question of the ‘oppressive conditions’ in the camps in Khartoum, but also that the person would not have the resources for economic survival in the Khartoum camps. Life in the camps would mean a total alteration in the kind and structure of the person’s life.
The Court of Appeal found that in all three cases it would be unduly harsh to expect relocation to the Khartoum camps. This judgment is particularly interesting because previous caselaw on relocation has focused on relocation between parts of a country with broadly similar social structures.
The Court of Appeal was critical of the way in which the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal had dealt with the law on internal relocation and also of its treatment of the evidence, including evidence from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal identifies certain cases as ‘country guidance cases’, designed to assist other immigration judges of the AIT when deciding cases from the country in question. The AIT’s decision in this case had been identified as such a country guidance case. The Court of Appeal took the opportunity to remind the AIT that when it wished to produce an authoritative ruling on the state of affairs in a country or territory it must take special care to see that its decision is carefully compiled and effectively comprehensive. The Court of Appeal’s reminder, in a judgment which contains substantial criticism of the AIT, seems designed to encourage the AIT to review the way in which it deals with country guidance cases and to take steps to improve quality control.
