Case No. UKUT-00392-(IAC)

which had expressly referred to article 8 of the QD. The phrase, “ shall …have regard to the… circumstances ” did not alter the burden of proof. There was nothing in the QD which set out the procedure for an assessment of internal relocation, as accepted by the Upper Tribunal at paragraphs [220] to [221] of AMM . 17. The assertion that because the Court of Appeal considered internal relocation the first time through the prism of the QD in AS, this undermined the relevance of AMM, was not correct, as Dr Chelvan had accepted that paragraph 339O of the Immigration Rules had transposed article 8 of the QD. 18. Mr Clarke argued that SC is consistent with the proposition that once the respondent has identified a suggested location at which the appellant can internally relocate, then the burden is on the appellant then to explain why relocation to the identified location would be unduly harsh. The burden is on the party seeking protection to prove their entitlement . Discussion and conclusion on burden of proof 19. Whilst in an analysis of legality for the purposes of a judicial review application, the lawfulness of a process might be determinative of an application, here, we are not concerned with the legality of the process by which the respondent reached its decision. Instead we are to decide whether the appellant is in need of international protection and, specific to this case whether the option of internal relocation can avail her in the light of the accepted fact of a risk of persecution in other parts of Albania. The burden of proof is on the appellant to make out her case; the respondent has raised the availability of internal relocation in the Decision and in accordance with the approach enjoined by the CA in SC , at paragraphs [33] to [34]: “33. The issue of the reasonableness of internal relocation accordingly involves three separate questions: 1. What is the location to which it is proposed the person could move? 2. Are there real risks of serious harm or persecution in this place? 3. If not, is it reasonable or not unduly harsh to expect the person to relocate to this place? 34. The first question is a factual question and the second question is an evaluation to be resolved on the basis of the evidence accepted by the tribunal. There is no legal complexity to the questions, although the tribunal should seek to express its conclusions in a clear way to show that it has considered the evidence relevant to the questions. The third question involves a further value judgment based on the evidence accepted. On its face, paragraph 339O of the Immigration Rules reflects the test laid down by the House of Lords in