Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AH (Sudan) & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The Respondents are three Sudanese nationals from Darfur who experienced persecution by militias alleged to act with governmental support. They entered the United Kingdom and claimed asylum between October and December 2004. The Secretary of State (Appellant) refused asylum. Those refusals were upheld by individual adjudicators/immigration judges.

Pursuant to section 103A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 the Respondents obtained statutory review. Their cases were escalated to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the initial challenges on 25 October 2005. The matter then proceeded to the House of Lords in Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department where the Respondents’ appeals were linked with an unrelated lead appeal. After the Januzi judgment, and by agreement, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) reconsidered the Respondents’ cases and on 3 August 2006 dismissed their appeals, thereby upholding the Secretary of State’s refusals.

The Respondents again appealed. On 27 March 2007 the Court of Appeal set aside the AIT’s decision and quashed the refusals of asylum ([2007] EWCA Civ 297). The Secretary of State now appealed to the House of Lords (the Court).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the AIT applied the correct legal test when assessing the reasonableness and potential undue harshness of internal relocation to Khartoum for the Respondents.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to interfere with the AIT’s factual findings on the basis of an alleged misdirection in law.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments (Secretary of State)

• The AIT correctly applied the internal relocation test laid down in Januzi; it did not equate that test with the threshold of Article 3 ECHR.
• The Court of Appeal therefore lacked jurisdiction to re-evaluate factual findings and substitute its own assessment.

Respondents’ Arguments

• The AIT misdirected itself by assimilating the “unduly harsh/unreasonable” test with the Article 3 ECHR standard, thereby applying too stringent a threshold.
• The Tribunal also erred by comparing conditions in Khartoum with conditions in Sudan “generally” rather than with the Respondents’ former lives in Darfur, contrary to guidance in earlier authority.
• Because of these legal errors the Court of Appeal was entitled to reach its own conclusion that relocation would be unduly harsh.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. Article 3 Misinterpretation Allegation: The Court acknowledged that individual sentences in the AIT determination (notably paragraph 150) could suggest an improper assimilation of the internal relocation test with Article 3 ECHR. Read fairly and as a whole, however, the Tribunal repeatedly distinguished (a) persecutory risk, (b) Article 3 risk, and (c) wider “undue hardship.” Therefore, no legal error was established.

2. Correct Comparative Framework: The Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s view that the AIT had to start with conditions in the Respondents’ place of habitual residence. Januzi supports considering both country-wide conditions and the claimant’s personal circumstances; the weight to be given to each comparison is for the fact-finder.

3. Deference to Expert Tribunal: Emphasising principles in Cooke, the Court noted that appellate intervention on fact can occur only if a material error of law is shown. Because the AIT applied the correct Januzi test, its findings—especially that life in Khartoum would not be “unduly harsh” compared with conditions generally experienced in Sudan—could not be reopened.

4. Holistic but Rigorous Standard: The Court reaffirmed that the “unduly harsh” threshold is stringent yet permits consideration of all personal and contextual factors. Nonetheless, compassion alone cannot justify refugee status when persecution risk in the proposed safe haven is absent.

Holding and Implications

HELD: The appeal was allowed. The House of Lords set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision and reinstated the AIT’s determination, thereby upholding the Secretary of State’s refusals of asylum.

Implications: The judgment re-affirms the Januzi formulation of internal relocation and emphasises judicial restraint when reviewing expert immigration tribunals. It clarifies that “undue hardship” is distinct from the Article 3 ECHR threshold and that country-wide living standards may legitimately inform the relocation analysis. No new precedent was created, but existing guidance on internal relocation was reinforced.