AA (Non-Arab Darfuris - relocation) Sudan CG

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a citizen of Sudan, appealed against the Secretary of State's decision dated 8 September 2008 to remove him from the United Kingdom as an illegal entrant. The initial determination by an Immigration Judge was successfully challenged, leading to an order on 16 March 2009 by a Senior Immigration Judge for a full second stage reconsideration hearing. This reconsideration took place on 4 November 2009 before Senior Immigration Judges Allen and Lane. The appeal concerned the risk of persecution faced by non-Arab Darfuris in Sudan and the issue of internal relocation within Sudan, particularly to Khartoum.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether non-Arab Darfuris face a real risk of persecution in Darfur and whether they can reasonably be expected to relocate internally within Sudan, specifically to Khartoum.
2. Whether the previous guidance in HGMO (Relocation to Khartoum) Sudan CG [2006] UKAIT 00062 remains applicable in light of new evidence and updated Operational Guidance Notes.
3. Whether the Appellant qualifies for asylum under the Refugee Convention and protection under Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant claimed membership of the Masseleit tribe, a non-Arab Darfuri group, which places him at real risk of persecution.
• He argued that internal relocation to Khartoum is not a reasonable expectation due to recent developments and reports indicating heightened risks there.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent acknowledged the Appellant's tribal affiliation was uncontested but referenced paragraphs in the refusal letter suggesting no individual threat of persecution and the Appellant's prolonged stay in Sudan after an attack on his village.
• The Respondent initially relied on previous guidance that internal relocation to Khartoum was reasonable for non-Arab Darfuris.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered updated evidence and the UK Border Agency's Operational Guidance Note (OGN) dated 2 November 2009, which indicated that non-Arab Darfuris are at real risk of persecution in Darfur and that internal relocation to Khartoum can no longer be reasonably relied upon due to recent developments. These developments included armed assaults, arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial executions, and the expulsion of NGOs that limited monitoring of human rights abuses in Khartoum. The court accepted the Appellant's uncontested tribal affiliation as Masseleit, a non-Arab Darfuri group, and found no basis in the refusal letter to challenge this. Consequently, the court concluded that the Appellant qualified for asylum under the Refugee Convention and protection under Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention. The court also clarified that certain aspects of the earlier HGMO guidance remain valid, specifically that involuntary returnees, failed asylum seekers, and persons of military age are not automatically at real risk on return to Khartoum, and that medical needs alone can only support a successful appeal in extreme and exceptional circumstances.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to allow the appeal under the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention. The appeal was allowed.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Appellant, as a non-Arab Darfuri, qualifies for asylum due to the real risk of persecution and the inability to safely relocate internally within Sudan. The decision updates the application of previous guidance and reflects changed country conditions but does not establish new precedent beyond the reassessment of existing guidance.