Case No. UKUT-00392-(IAC)

[2006] EWCA Civ 342 Sedley LJ said:- "[16] The possibility of internal relocation is relevant to refugee and human rights claims because it may demonstrate that a fear of persecution or harm, though warranted by the applicant's experience in his place of origin, is not well-founded in relation to other parts of the state whose duty it is to protect him. But while the two issues – fear and relocation - go ultimately to the single question of safety, they cannot be decided in the same breath. Once the judge of fact is satisfied that the applicant has a justified fear of persecution or harm if returned to his home area, the claim will ordinarily be made out unless the judge is satisfied that he can nevertheless be safely returned to another part of his country of origin. Provided the second issue has been flagged up, there may be no formal burden of proof on the Home Secretary (see GH [2004] UKIAT 00248); but this does not mean that the judge of fact can reject an otherwise well-founded claim unless the evidence satisfies him that internal relocation is a safe and reasonable option. [17] It is necessary to stress both adjectives - safe and reasonable. It is well established that relocation to a safe area is not an answer to a claim if it is unreasonable to expect the applicant to settle there. There may be no work or housing. He may not speak the language. Similarly, relocation to an area may be perfectly reasonable by these standards but unsafe, for example because of the risk of continued official harassment or - as in this case – revenge-seeking." 223. In AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State [2007] UKHL 49, Lord Bingham referred to what he had said in Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5:- "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 [2001] 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 … or must depend on a fair assessment of the relevant facts [5]." 224. In AA (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 579 an Immigration Judge, on the reconsideration of an appeal following an earlier Immigration Judge's determination, dismissed the appellant's appeal because, although she had a well-founded fear of persecution in a particular area of Uganda, she had attended a particular church in the United Kingdom and the Immigration Judge saw "no reason why she could not also turn to the church in Uganda for similar support if the need arises". That finding was categorised as perverse, not being based on relevant (indeed) any evidence [12], [40] and [54]. 225. We do not consider that the case law relied upon by the appellants comes close to establishing that the respondent bears the legal burden of proving that there is a part of the country of nationality of an appellant, who has established a well-founded fear in one area thereof, to which the appellant could reasonably be expected to go and live. The person who claims international protection bears the legal burden of proving that he or she is entitled to it. What that burden entails will, however, very much depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. In practice, the issue of an internal relocation alternative needs to be raised by the Secretary of State, either in the letter of refusal or (subject to issues of procedural fairness) during the appellate proceedings. In many cases, the respondent will point to evidence regarding the general conditions in the proposed place of relocation. It will then be for the appellant to make good an assertion that, notwithstanding those conditions, it would not be reasonable to relocate there. Those reasons may often be ones about which only the appellant could know; for example, whether there are people living in the area of proposed relocation who might identify the appellant to those in his home area whom he fears. The Secretary of State clearly cannot be expected to lead evidence on such an issue.” 21. AMM provides a clear context and rationale for why, once the respondent has identified the proposed location, it is for the appellant to make good an assertion that notwithstanding general conditions, it would not be reasonable for them to relocate there. The paucity of evidence, as in the case before us, about general conditions in Shkodër , does not alter this analysis. 22. We do not accept that SC should be distinguished on the basis that it was not referred to by the Court of Appeal in AS; or because it was dealing with article 3 issues in the context of deportation; or because AS was the first case in which the Court of Appeal considered internal relocation through the prism of the QD. 23. We do not accept that the lack of reference in AS to SC means that the general guidance in SC is limited to analysis under article 3, in particular when there was specific consideration of internal relocation, including by reference to the well-known authority of Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5 , [2006] 2 AC 246. We remind ourselves of paragraphs [36] of SC : “36. I accept the submission that the evaluative exercise is intended to be holistic and that no burden or standard of proof arises in relation to the overall issue of whether it is reasonable to internally relocate (see, for example Sedley LJ in Karanakaran v SSHD