UK - House of Lords, 15 February 2006, Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2006] UKHL 5

What was at stake

EDAL summary. In assessing whether an applicant could obtain internal protection to avoid persecution, decision makers should consider whether it would be unreasonable or unduly harsh to expect the applicant to rel...

What happened

All four applicants were denied refugee status because it was believed there were parts of their countries where they would not face persecution and could reasonably relocate. The first applicant was an Albanian Kosovan displaced by Serbian ethnic cleansing, suggested to relocate to Pristina. The other three were black Africans from Darfur, Sudan, facing persecution from Arab bands, and were suggested to relocate to Khartoum.

What the court decided

The House of Lords set out that the test for internal protection is whether it is reasonable to expect a claimant to relocate or whether it would be unduly harsh, taking into account all relevant circumstances and guided by the UNHCR Guidelines, and applied this test by dismissing Januzi’s appeal while allowing the other applicants’ appeals to be remitted for further consideration.

How the court got there

The House of Lords decided that the test for internal protection should be whether it is reasonable to expect a claimant to relocate or whether it would be unduly harsh, considering all relevant circumstances. The court rejected using international human rights standards as a comparator, emphasizing the need to focus on the specific conditions in the claimant's country of origin and the UNHCR Guidelines.

Statutes and cases cited

Categories

Authoritative link