AH (Midgan, Disabled Woman, Relocation, Mogadishu) Somalia

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a national of Somalia and member of the sub-minority Midgan tribe, appealed with leave against a determination by an Adjudicator dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse asylum and issue removal directions. The Appellant had suffered attacks by militias in 1991 and 1999, resulting in the death of two of her children and a disabling left femur fracture. She claimed a fear of persecution and lack of adequate medical treatment if returned to Somalia. The Adjudicator accepted the past harm but found no current risk of persecution or breach of human rights upon return. The Appellant challenged this decision before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, which heard the matter on 4 February 2003.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant faced a current well-founded fear of persecution as a member of the Midgan tribe upon return to Somalia.
2. Whether the Appellant’s disability and need for medical treatment engaged protections under Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, thereby precluding removal.
3. Whether an internal relocation alternative within Somalia (Somaliland or Puntiland) was a viable option for the Appellant.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Adjudicator erred in interpreting the objective country information, particularly paragraph 5.44 of the CIPU report, which indicated ongoing pressures on minorities such as the Midgan tribe.
• The Appellant’s disability required surgery and rehabilitation not available in Somalia, increasing her risk of serious harm contrary to Articles 2 and 3.
• The Appellant’s age and lack of family support in Somalia exacerbated the hardship upon return.
• Reliance was placed on the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Bensaid v UK to support the claim that removal would violate human rights protections.

Respondent's Arguments

• The CIPU report indicated that the Midgan tribe no longer faced real risk of persecution in Mogadishu or other regions.
• Medical facilities, including a well-run hospital in Mogadishu, were available to the Appellant, and no evidence showed a real risk of serious harm from lack of treatment.
• Even if medical treatment was limited, the Appellant did not face a risk of losing her leg or drastic loss of mobility sufficient to engage Articles 2 or 3.
• Internal relocation to Somaliland or Puntiland was a reasonable alternative, and the Appellant had not demonstrated undue hardship in relocating despite her disability and solitary status as a woman.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal carefully examined the objective country information, particularly the CIPU report, which indicated that although the Midgan tribe had suffered during the civil war, their situation had improved and they no longer faced persecution solely based on ethnicity. The Tribunal agreed with the Adjudicator that the Appellant had not demonstrated a current, well-founded fear of persecution upon return to Mogadishu or elsewhere in Somalia.

Regarding the Appellant’s disability and medical needs, the Tribunal acknowledged the evidence of her need for surgery and rehabilitation but noted the absence of detailed evidence requiring treatment exclusively in the UK. The presence of a functioning hospital in Mogadishu and the lack of evidence of a real risk of serious harm or significant detriment led the Tribunal to conclude that Articles 2 and 3 were not engaged to prohibit removal.

The Tribunal also considered internal relocation alternatives and concluded that even if return to Mogadishu was problematic, relocation to Somaliland or Puntiland would not be unduly harsh given the country conditions and the Appellant’s circumstances.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The Tribunal upheld the decision to refuse asylum and removal directions against the Appellant. The ruling confirms that past persecution does not automatically translate into a current risk sufficient to grant asylum, particularly where country information indicates improved conditions. The decision also clarifies the evidentiary threshold required to engage human rights protections based on medical needs and disability in the context of removal. No new precedent was established; the ruling applies existing principles to the facts presented.