Internal Relocation: When the Court Says Just Move

Last updated: 5 October 2026

Photo: Advogada Tania Pinho, candidata ao Tribunal de Contas - Assembleia Legislativa do Espírito Santo

One of the most common reasons asylum claims are refused is internal relocation asylum. The government argues that even if you face persecution in your home region, you could simply move to a safer part of your country. This argument, known as the internal flight alternative or internal protection alternative, is raised in thousands of cases every year. However, the test is not as straightforward as "just move somewhere else." Courts must assess both safety and reasonableness, and the burden of proof often falls on the government to show relocation is viable.[1]

Understanding how the internal relocation test works is essential for anyone preparing an asylum claim. Moreover, this is one of the areas where expert witness evidence has the greatest impact. An expert who knows the country can address whether relocation is genuinely safe and realistic in your specific circumstances. This asylum guide explains the legal framework, identifies when relocation arguments fail, and provides practical advice for challenging this common ground of refusal.

What Is Internal Relocation?

Internal relocation, also called the internal flight alternative (IFA), is a legal concept that applies when the government accepts you face a risk in one part of your country but argues you could live safely in another area. In other words, the decision-maker concedes the persecution risk but says it is geographically limited. Therefore, instead of granting protection, they suggest you relocate within your own country.[2]

This argument arises frequently in cases involving non-state persecution. For example, if you fear a local militia, a family member, or a criminal gang, the government may argue that the threat does not extend nationwide. Consequently, it claims you could move to a different city or region where the persecutor cannot reach you. However, the analysis is far more nuanced than simply identifying a safe postcode on a map. Courts must consider whether you would actually be safe and whether it is reasonable to expect you to start a new life there.

The Legal Test: Two Questions Courts Must Answer

The internal relocation asylum test involves two distinct questions. Both must be answered in the government's favour for relocation to apply. First, will the applicant be safe from persecution in the proposed relocation area? If the persecutor has nationwide reach, this question alone defeats the relocation argument. Second, is it reasonable to expect the applicant to live in the relocation area? Even if safety is established, relocation must not impose conditions that are unduly harsh.[3]

The UK Approach: Januzi and "Unduly Harsh"

The leading UK authority on internal relocation is Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5. The House of Lords held that the question is whether it would be "unduly harsh" to expect the applicant to relocate. Lord Bingham explained that the decision-maker must consider the practical realities of living in the proposed area. This includes access to housing, employment, healthcare, and social support networks. Additionally, the assessment must account for the applicant's personal circumstances, including age, gender, health, and family situation.[4]

The "unduly harsh" standard means more than mere inconvenience. However, it does not require conditions approaching persecution. The test sits somewhere in between. Courts assess whether the quality of life available in the relocation area falls below an acceptable minimum, taking into account the applicant's individual profile. Furthermore, the UNHCR has emphasised that internal relocation should not lead to "undue hardship" and that the assessment must be forward-looking.

The US Approach: Reasonable Under All Circumstances

In the US, the internal relocation test asks whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate. The Board of Immigration Appeals considers the totality of circumstances, including whether the applicant could find safety, sustain a livelihood, and access basic services. The burden of proof varies depending on the type of persecution. If the applicant has established past persecution, the government bears the burden of proving relocation is reasonable. If the claim is based solely on a fear of future persecution, the applicant bears the burden.[5]

When Internal Relocation Fails

There are several well-established situations where the internal relocation argument should not succeed. Understanding these categories helps you identify whether relocation is a viable argument in your case and, if so, how to challenge it effectively.

State Persecution: Nationwide Reach

When the state itself is the persecutor, internal relocation is almost always unreasonable. Governments have nationwide reach through their security apparatus, intelligence services, and administrative systems. If the Russian FSB is targeting you, moving from Moscow to Vladivostok provides no protection. Similarly, if the Iranian IRGC has issued an arrest warrant, relocating within Iran offers no safety. Courts consistently hold that state persecution defeats the relocation argument.[6]

Non-State Actors With Nationwide Presence

Some non-state actors operate across an entire country. The Taliban controls or influences virtually all of Afghanistan. Al-Shabaab maintains networks throughout much of Somalia, including in Mogadishu. Consequently, relocation within these countries often fails because the persecuting group has the capacity to locate and harm the applicant anywhere. Courts recognise that powerful non-state actors can track individuals through tribal, family, and community networks.

Technology and Surveillance

Modern surveillance technology increasingly undermines the relocation argument. Russia's SORM system gives authorities the ability to monitor telecommunications nationwide. China's social credit system and facial recognition network make it virtually impossible for a targeted individual to disappear within the country. Furthermore, digital databases, biometric identification, and integrated border systems mean that simply moving to a new city does not guarantee anonymity. This is a rapidly evolving area that requires up-to-date expert evidence.[7]

Single Women Without Family Networks

For women in many countries, internal relocation without a male family network is not merely difficult but dangerous. In Afghanistan, a woman without male relatives cannot rent accommodation, access healthcare, or move freely. In Somalia, a woman from a minority clan relocated to an area dominated by another clan faces exploitation and violence. Courts increasingly recognise that gender-specific barriers make relocation unreasonable for single women, widows, and divorced women in patriarchal societies.[8]

Discriminatory Conditions in the Relocation Area

Even if the persecutor cannot reach the applicant in the new area, the conditions there may themselves amount to a violation of fundamental rights. For example, relocating a member of a religious minority to an area where that religion is heavily restricted may expose them to new forms of persecution. Additionally, relocating an LGBTQ+ individual to a conservative region where they must conceal their identity to survive raises serious human rights concerns. The UK Supreme Court confirmed in HJ (Iran) [2010] that requiring a person to conceal a protected characteristic to avoid persecution is itself a form of persecution.[9]

Internal Relocation Viability by Country

Key Case Law on Internal Relocation Asylum

Several landmark cases shape how courts assess internal relocation. In the UK, Januzi [2006] remains the leading authority, establishing the "unduly harsh" test. The case of AH (Sudan) [2007] UKHL 49 further clarified that decision-makers must consider the practical realities facing the individual, not merely hypothetical possibilities. Lord Bingham emphasised that the assessment must be realistic and fact-sensitive.[10]

In the US, Matter of M-Z-M-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2012) addressed the allocation of the burden of proof in relocation cases. The BIA held that where past persecution is established, the government must prove internal relocation is reasonable by a preponderance of evidence. Additionally, the UNHCR's Guidelines on International Protection No. 4 provide authoritative guidance that courts in both jurisdictions frequently cite.

The European Court of Human Rights has also addressed relocation in the context of Article 3 ECHR. In Salah Sheekh v Netherlands (2007), the Court held that returning an applicant to a "relatively safe" area of Somalia was insufficient if the applicant, as a member of a minority clan, would face Article 3 ill-treatment there. This decision underscored that safety alone is not enough. The conditions in the relocation area must respect the applicant's fundamental rights.[11]

The question is whether it would be unduly harsh to expect a claimant who is being persecuted in one part of his country to move to a less hostile part before seeking international protection.
Lord Bingham, Januzi v SSHD [2006] UKHL 5, para 21

Practical Steps to Challenge Internal Relocation

If the Home Office or DHS raises internal relocation in your case, take these steps. First, identify the specific area the government proposes. Often, refusal letters are vague about where you could relocate. Challenge this by demanding the decision-maker identify a specific location and explain why it is both safe and reasonable.[12]

Second, gather evidence addressing both limbs of the test. For safety, provide country evidence showing the persecutor's reach in the proposed area. For reasonableness, address the practical barriers to starting a new life there. Third, commission an expert report that specifically addresses relocation viability for your profile. The expert should cover the persecutor's capacity, local conditions, and any gender, ethnicity, or health-related factors that affect the analysis.

Conclusion

The internal relocation asylum argument is one of the most frequent reasons for asylum refusal, but it is also one of the most successfully challenged on appeal. The legal test requires the government to demonstrate both safety and reasonableness. State persecution, powerful non-state actors, modern surveillance systems, and gender-specific barriers all provide strong grounds for defeating the relocation argument. Furthermore, expert evidence addressing the specific viability of relocation for your individual profile is often the deciding factor. If your claim has been refused on internal relocation grounds, seek specialist legal advice and consider commissioning an expert witness report that directly addresses why relocation is not a viable option in your case.