MS (Art 1C(5)- Mogadishu)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Respondent, a citizen of Somalia born in 1989, arrived in the UK in 2002 with his mother and siblings, who claimed asylum. The mother’s asylum claim was refused but she and her children were granted various forms of leave to remain. The Respondent himself had a significant criminal history including convictions for conspiracy to defraud and assault, resulting in multiple custodial sentences. Despite this, he was granted asylum in 2012 following curtailment of discretionary leave.

The Secretary of State (Appellant) sought to cease the Respondent's refugee status under Article 1C(5) of the Refugee Convention, arguing that there had been a fundamental and enduring change in circumstances in the country of origin, specifically in Mogadishu. The Respondent appealed this decision to the First-tier Tribunal (FtT), which allowed the appeal and ruled that cessation was not appropriate because the change did not apply to the whole country and internal relocation was not a relevant consideration for cessation. This decision was then appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Secretary of State is entitled to cease a person’s refugee status under Article 1C(5) of the Refugee Convention solely on the basis of a change in circumstances in one part of the country of proposed return.
2. Whether issues of internal relocation are relevant considerations in the application of Article 1C(5) for cessation of refugee status.
3. The appropriate standard and burden of proof in cessation decisions under Article 1C(5).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Secretary of State argued that cessation of refugee status can be based on fundamental and durable changes in part of the country, specifically Mogadishu, where the Respondent would be returned.
• It was contended that if deported, the Respondent would be removed to Mogadishu and it would be for him to consider internal relocation.
• The Appellant submitted that UNHCR Guidelines are not determinative and that the tribunal’s reliance on them was misplaced.
• The Appellant argued that the Respondent could find unskilled employment in Mogadishu and that the First-tier Tribunal failed to properly consider economic opportunities and return packages.
• It was submitted that cessation should apply where there is a viable internal relocation alternative.
• The Appellant relied on case law including Hoxha & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 19.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent argued that cessation requires a fundamental and enduring change in the entire country, not just part of it.
• It was submitted that internal relocation is not a relevant consideration in cessation decisions under Article 1C(5), consistent with UNHCR Guidelines.
• The Respondent emphasized his minority clan membership and lack of family or clan support in Mogadishu, as well as mental health issues affecting his ability to survive on return.
• The Respondent relied on the First-tier Tribunal’s findings and case law including MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 442 (IAC).
• The Respondent highlighted the need for a strict and restrictive approach to cessation clauses to avoid unjust deprivation of refugee status.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the application of Article 1C(5) of the Refugee Convention, which permits cessation of refugee status only where the circumstances giving rise to recognition as a refugee have fundamentally and durably changed. The court emphasized the need for a strict and restrictive approach to cessation to avoid unjust deprivation of protection.

The court agreed with the First-tier Tribunal that internal relocation within the country of origin is not a relevant consideration for cessation decisions under Article 1C(5), aligning with UNHCR Guidelines. It rejected the Secretary of State’s approach that cessation could be based on changes limited to Mogadishu, a part of Somalia, when the Respondent’s claim related to the situation in his home area of Kismayo.

The court noted that the Secretary of State’s decision letters did acknowledge the Respondent’s origin in Kismayo, but the focus on Mogadishu was central to the cessation decision. This approach was held to be fundamentally flawed because it conflicts with the principle that cessation requires changes affecting the country as a whole.

The court distinguished the grant of refugee status from its cessation, noting that the former may consider internal relocation, but the latter requires a holistic assessment of the entire country’s circumstances.

The court also addressed arguments concerning the Respondent’s mental health, employment prospects, and potential living conditions on return, concluding that the First-tier Tribunal’s findings were not erroneous in law but rather assessments of fact and risk.

Finally, the court found no error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and upheld its conclusion that the Secretary of State was not entitled to cease the Respondent’s refugee status based solely on changes in Mogadishu.

Holding and Implications

The Upper Tribunal Judge held that the First-tier Tribunal did not err in law and that the appeal by the Secretary of State must be dismissed. The core ruling is that the Secretary of State is not entitled to cease a person's refugee status under Article 1C(5) of the Refugee Convention solely on the basis of a change in circumstances in one part of the country of proposed return.

The direct effect is that the Respondent retains refugee status and protection under the Refugee Convention and/or Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. No broader precedent was established beyond confirming the strict and restrictive approach to cessation and the irrelevance of internal relocation considerations in cessation decisions under Article 1C(5).