ASJ (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal promulgated on 14 June 2022, which dismissed an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal. The First-tier Tribunal had dismissed an appeal against a decision of the respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who refused a claim by the appellant for asylum or humanitarian protection. The appellant is a national of Somalia who feared the Islamist group Al-Shabaab and claimed risk of persecution. The appellant left Somalia in 2014, lived in Sweden where his asylum claim was refused, then entered the United Kingdom unlawfully in 2018 and again in 2019. The Secretary of State considered the appellant could relocate internally within Somalia to Mogadishu, where there was no suggested risk. The First-tier Tribunal agreed that relocation to Mogadishu would not be unduly harsh. The Upper Tribunal found errors in the First-tier Tribunal’s approach, particularly regarding clan support and financial assistance, and remade the decision, ultimately concluding that relocation to Mogadishu would not be unreasonable or unduly harsh. The appellant now appeals the Upper Tribunal’s decision on the standard of proof applied in assessing internal relocation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Upper Tribunal applied the correct standard of proof in deciding that the appellant could relocate internally within Somalia.
2. Whether the concept of burden and standard of proof is applicable in the context of internal relocation assessments or whether such issues require a holistic evaluative judgment.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Upper Tribunal applied the wrong standard of proof by concluding it was "reasonably likely" that the appellant had family or clan support in the place of relocation, thereby excluding the reasonable likelihood that he would not have such support.
• The Tribunal should have given the appellant the benefit of the doubt unless it was sure beyond real doubt that the appellant’s account was untrue.
• The Tribunal erred in inferring that persons who helped fund the appellant’s journeys were likely able and willing to send remittances to him in Mogadishu.
• The Tribunal should have accepted the appellant’s claim of no support if there was a real possibility that the claim was true.
• It may be inappropriate to decide internal relocation matters by reference to burden or standard of proof, and instead the appellant should have the benefit of doubt unless the Tribunal was sure the account was untrue.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Upper Tribunal correctly applied the approach in the leading case law, making a holistic assessment of all circumstances, including personal factors, clan support, remittances, and available resources.
• The challenged findings were factual determinations supported by evidence, with the correct lower standard of proof applied.
• Burden and standard of proof concepts relate to establishing a well-founded fear of persecution, not to internal relocation assessments.
• Internal relocation involves a broad evaluative judgment on whether it would be unduly harsh to require relocation, not a strict evidential burden.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the appellant’s claim by applying established legal principles on asylum, humanitarian protection, and internal relocation. It reaffirmed that internal relocation assessments require a holistic evaluation of all relevant circumstances, including personal factors, country conditions, and support networks, rather than a strict burden or standard of proof as in establishing persecution risk.

The court reviewed the evidence relating to the appellant’s clan status, family and diaspora links, financial resources, and the ability to access remittances. It noted the appellant’s lack of close family support in Somalia, limited income, and minority clan status, but also found it reasonably likely that he had wider clan or family support through diaspora networks, inferred from the funding of his journeys to the United Kingdom and cultural obligations to assist kinsmen in need.

The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the Upper Tribunal should have given him the benefit of the doubt unless it was sure beyond real doubt that his account was untrue. It held that the Upper Tribunal was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and express findings in terms of what was reasonably likely. The court found no error in the Upper Tribunal’s application of the law or its evaluation of the facts, concluding that the decision to dismiss the appeal was open and properly reasoned.

The court also discussed the respondent’s submission that burden and standard of proof concepts do not apply to internal relocation, and agreed that internal relocation is a high-threshold evaluative judgment about whether it would be unduly harsh to expect relocation, rather than a strict evidential burden question. The court therefore upheld the approach taken by the Upper Tribunal as consistent with established authority.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court held that the Upper Tribunal did not err in its approach to assessing internal relocation or in the standard of proof applied. The decision confirms that internal relocation assessments involve a holistic evaluation of all relevant circumstances and do not require the strict application of burden or standard of proof concepts used in establishing persecution risk. The ruling directly affects the parties by affirming that the appellant is not entitled to asylum or humanitarian protection on the grounds that internal relocation to Mogadishu is not unduly harsh or unreasonable. No new legal precedent was established beyond affirming and applying existing case law.