## Facts

- Four applicants sought asylum in the United Kingdom but were refused refugee status by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the basis of an internal relocation alternative.
- Gzim Januzi, an ethnic Albanian from Mitrovica in Kosovo, fled after suffering ethnic cleansing and related mistreatment by Serb forces. He accepted that conditions in Mitrovica gave rise to a well-founded fear of persecution but argued that it would be unduly harsh to expect him to relocate within Kosovo.
- Januzi contended that relocation to Pristina would be unreasonable, relying mainly on health-related and medical considerations and the practical difficulties of restarting life elsewhere in Kosovo.
- Abdoulazaz Hamid, Ibrahim Gaafar, and Noureldeain Mohammed were Sudanese citizens from Darfur who fled after being targeted in violence carried out by bands of marauding Arabs, which the Sudanese government encouraged and did not stop.
- The Sudanese applicants argued that relocating to Khartoum would expose them to discrimination and a real risk of further harm, or at least conditions so harsh that it would be unreasonable to expect them to live there.
- Each claim turned on the Refugee Convention definition of “refugee,” and on how that definition applies when persecution is localized but an alternative place of residence exists within the country of nationality.

## Issues

1. When an asylum seeker has a well-founded fear of persecution in one part of the country of nationality, can refugee status be refused if there is another part of the country where the person can live without that fear and it is reasonable to expect relocation there?
2. What is the correct standard for assessing whether internal relocation is “reasonable,” including the meaning of “unduly harsh,” and the factors that must be considered?

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that a claimant is not entitled to refugee status if there is a part of the country of nationality where the claimant would not have a well-founded fear of persecution, would have access to protection, and it would be reasonable (not unduly harsh) to expect the claimant to live there rather than seek asylum abroad.
- The House treated the internal relocation inquiry as consistent with, and flowing from, the Refugee Convention’s definition of a refugee, even though the Convention does not expressly set out an internal relocation rule.
- The House rejected approaches that would turn the relocation inquiry into a requirement that the proposed place of relocation meet a general minimum standard derived from international instruments or provide living conditions comparable to those in the United Kingdom.
- Applying that approach, the House concluded that the refusals of refugee status could stand on the basis that internal relocation was reasonably available on the facts found in each case, and the appeals were dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Internal relocation is part of the Refugee Convention analysis: a person is not “outside the country of nationality” due to a Convention reason if, in practical terms, the person could live in another part of that country without a well-founded fear of persecution and with access to protection.
- The decision-maker must identify a proposed area of relocation and assess, on the evidence, whether the claimant would face a real risk of persecution there.
- If the claimant would be safe from persecution in the proposed area, the decision-maker must then ask whether it is reasonable to expect the claimant to relocate there; the standard is commonly expressed as whether relocation would be “unduly harsh.”
- The “unduly harsh” inquiry is fact-sensitive and takes account of the claimant’s personal circumstances (including health and other vulnerabilities) and conditions in the country of origin, but it does not require conditions to be free from difficulty, deprivation, or reduced living standards.
- The assessment is not a comparison between life in the country of origin and life in the receiving state; hardship short of persecution does not, by itself, make internal relocation unreasonable.
- Discrimination or economic disadvantage in the proposed place of relocation does not necessarily amount to persecution or make relocation unreasonable; the question is whether the claimant can live there without a well-founded fear of persecution and without conditions crossing the threshold of undue harshness.
- Where country conditions and personal characteristics interact (for example, ethnicity, prior trauma, health needs, and the availability of support), those combined effects must be evaluated rather than assumed.

## Conclusion

Januzi confirms that refugee status may be refused where, despite a well-founded fear of persecution in one region, a claimant can move to another part of the country of nationality that is safe from persecution, offers access to protection, and can be lived in without undue harshness when the claimant’s circumstances and in-country conditions are considered.


Januzi v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2006] UKHL 5 (2006)