Introduction

The case of ASJ (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 282 represents a significant development in the judicial approach to internal relocation issues within asylum and humanitarian protection claims. In this case, the appellant, a Somali national from Barawe, challenged the decision refusing protection on the grounds that returning him to Somalia, with the expectation of internal relocation to Mogadishu, would be unduly harsh.

The background centers on the appellant’s claim that he faced a risk from Al-Shabaab in his home area, while noting that relocation to Mogadishu would expose him to less danger. However, the controversy hinged upon whether internal relocation can be deemed reasonable when evaluated under a lower standard of proof—one that takes into account the overall circumstances rather than strictly rigid evidential benchmarks.

Both the appellant and the Secretary of State vigorously presented their respective positions. The appellant argued that the Upper Tribunal applied the wrong standard of proof – inferring clan networks and potential remittance support from limited evidence. In contrast, the respondent maintained that the approach must be holistic, considering all pertinent factors, consistent with established precedents.

Summary of the Judgment

The England and Wales Court of Appeal, following an exhaustive review of previous decisions and the evidence, dismissed the appellant's appeal. The Upper Tribunal’s decision was upheld on the basis that internal relocation requires a holistic evaluation of a claimant’s circumstances. It was found that while the appellant could not return safely to his home area of Barawe, relocating to Mogadishu would not be unduly harsh given the presence of clan and diaspora networks that could potentially render remittances and other support.

The judgment further clarified that the traditional burden of proof issues, although central in other asylum contexts, are less appropriate when the question is one of assessing the “reasonableness” of internal relocation. Instead, decision-makers are directed to undertake a comprehensive assessment of all the facts, considering the cultural context, family or clan ties, and available financial resources.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Several key precedents were instrumental in shaping the court’s decision:

• R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p. Sivakumaran [1988] AC 958: This case established that the fear of persecution must be “well-founded” and of a reasonable likelihood. It emphasizes the evidential threshold required in asylum cases.
• Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5: The House of Lords decisively held that internal relocation is a viable option where a claimant can relocate to another part of the country where persecution is unlikely. The decision clarifies that disparities in local conditions are secondary to whether relocation is, in the balance of probabilities, a viable safeguard.
• AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 49: Reinforcing the principles laid out in Januzi, this decision emphasized that internal relocation should be determined through an all-encompassing assessment of a claimant’s personal circumstances.
• SC (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 15: This judgment reiterated the stringency of the "reasonableness test" in assessing whether internal relocation would be unduly harsh.

The Upper Tribunal’s reliance on the MOJ & Others (Return to Mogadishu) [2014] and OA (Somalia) CG [2022] further anchored the decision in robust country-specific guidance, which documents the practical realities of clan dynamics and diaspora remittances in Somali society.

Legal Reasoning

Central to the court’s reasoning was the principle that issues concerning internal relocation are best addressed using a holistic rather than a strictly evidentiary approach. This means that even when direct evidence of support or the lack thereof is not entirely robust, the claimant’s personal background, the cultural imperatives of clan support in Somali society, and evidence of diaspora links can collectively provide a compelling basis for decision-making.

The appellant’s sole ground of appeal—that the wrong standard of proof was applied—was rejected as the Tribunal’s assessment was consistent with established legal principles derived from Januzi and AH (Sudan). The decision-maker was tasked with balancing the risk of persecution against the practicality and fairness of internal relocation. As such, the Tribunal’s inference that the appellant could rely on a wider network of support, evidenced by his ability to fund trips and existing diaspora contacts, was deemed reasonable and within the permissible bounds of judicial discretion.

Impact on Future Cases

This judgment is significant for several reasons. First, it enshrines the view that internal relocation should be judged on a “holistic assessment” weighing all related circumstances rather than strictly the burden or standard of proof. Future cases will likely reference this decision when adjudicating claims where internal relocation is the possible solution, particularly where applicants come from regions with complex socio-cultural dynamics such as those seen in Somalia.

Moreover, this decision may influence how lower tribunals assess evidence relating to familial and clan ties, leading to a more nuanced understanding that supports a thorough contextual evaluation. Decision-makers will have greater latitude to infer the existence of remittance channels and network support based on circumstantial evidence, thereby granting the benefit of any doubt where appropriate.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The case deals with several complex legal concepts that merit simplification:

• Internal Relocation: This is the concept of moving a claimant from one area of their country to another to avoid persecution. The critical question is whether such relocation would be unduly harsh or unreasonable.
• Holistic Assessment: Rather than looking for a strict checklist of evidence (i.e., a rigid burden of proof), the decision-makers are encouraged to consider all aspects of a claimant’s personal and cultural circumstances. This includes evaluating family ties, financial resources, and cultural obligations that might facilitate support upon return.
• Standard of Proof in Asylum Cases: In contrast to other legal contexts, asylum cases often adopt a lower standard of proof due to the precarious nature of the evidence. This case underscores that even when parts of an applicant’s narrative are not fully corroborated, a reasonable possibility that their claim is true must be accommodated.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the judgment in ASJ (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department reaffirms the approach that internal relocation in asylum cases is not solely an evidential exercise but rather an evaluative one that must factor in a range of personal, cultural, and contextual variables. The decision underscores that where a claimant can potentially rely on diaspora or clan support—and where the evidence, even if circumstantial, suggests the availability of such support—the expectation to relocate internally is not unduly harsh.

The upholding of the Upper Tribunal's decision provides clarity to legal practitioners and decision-makers alike, affirming that holistic assessments remain critical in determining the fairness and reasonableness of requiring relocation. As a result, this judgment paves the way for future cases involving internal relocation to be resolved through a context-rich analysis rather than a narrow focus on evidentiary proof alone.

Final Takeaways

The ASJ judgment is a landmark decision in asylum jurisprudence on internal relocation. It emphasizes that:

• The holistic evaluation of all relevant circumstances is paramount.
• Assessments must incorporate cultural nuances, such as clan networks and diaspora support.
• Strict evidentiary thresholds are less applicable where a comprehensive risk assessment of internal relocation is required.
• The decision reinforces existing precedents while providing much-needed clarity on how tribunals should approach the relocation test.

In this way, the judgment not only dismisses the appellant’s appeal but also serves as a guiding precedent, ensuring that future decisions regarding internally relocated asylum claimants are grounded in fairness, flexibility, and an understanding of real-world circumstances.