Internal Relocation: When the Court Says Just Move

Internal relocation, also called internal flight or the internal protection alternative, asks whether an applicant could have moved somewhere else inside their own country instead of leaving it. Where internal relocation is available and reasonable, asylum is refused. Where it is unavailable or unreasonable, protection follows. Understanding the framework is fundamental — it is one of the two most common grounds for asylum refusal, alongside credibility.[1]

The framework has developed substantially through UK, US, Canadian, and EU case law. UNHCR Guidelines No. 4 (2003) on internal flight/relocation alternative sets the international standard. Each jurisdiction applies broadly similar tests but with distinct nuances.

The Framework

UNHCR Guidelines No. 4 (2003) establishes two questions for internal relocation analysis.[2]

1. Relevance — is there an area of the country where the applicant would not face persecution?
2. Reasonableness — would it be reasonable to expect the applicant to relocate there?

Both must be affirmative for relocation to bar protection. If either fails, protection follows.

UK Framework: Januzi and AH (Sudan)

The UK framework was established in Januzi v SSHD [2006] UKHL 5 and refined in AH (Sudan) v SSHD [2007] UKHL 49. Key elements include the following.[3]

The Januzi Test

Lord Bingham held that internal relocation must be assessed for reasonableness. The applicant should not be required to relocate to conditions of "utter hardship" or "abject destitution". Comparison is to conditions in the country of relocation, not conditions in the country of refuge.

The AH (Sudan) Refinement

The House of Lords clarified that reasonableness is assessed against local standards, not "the reasonable Western standard". The applicant is expected to reintegrate into conditions typical of the country. However, "utter hardship" and "abject destitution" remain bars.

Key UK Factors

Personal circumstances — age, gender, health, family composition. Ethnic/religious identity — whether the relocation area is hostile. Language and cultural fit — whether the applicant can integrate. Economic sustainability — can the applicant earn a living? Family networks — support in the relocation area? Physical safety — freedom from persecution. Access to basic services — food, water, shelter, healthcare.

US Framework

US law addresses internal relocation under 8 CFR 1208.13(b)(2)(ii) and (iii). The regulations require consideration of whether relocation would be "reasonable under all the circumstances". Factors include ongoing civil strife, administrative infrastructure, personal circumstances, and any harm the applicant may have already suffered.[4]

Canada Framework

Canadian framework rests on Rasaratnam v MEI [1992] 1 FC 706 and Thirunavukkarasu v Canada [1994] 1 FC 589. The two-part test requires:

1. No serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA location.
2. Conditions in the IFA location are such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, for the applicant to seek refuge there.

EU Framework

EU Qualification Directive 2011/95/EU Article 8 governs internal protection alternative. The Directive requires that (a) the applicant has no well-founded fear of persecution in the IPA location, (b) the applicant has access to protection there, (c) the applicant can safely travel to and settle in the location.[5]

When Relocation Is Unavailable

Relocation is unavailable where:[6]

National persecution — state actor operating nationwide. National non-state actor — gang, militia, or family with national reach. Small country geography — Honduras, Rwanda, small islands. National tracking systems — biometric ID; national police databases. State-of-exception governance — as in El Salvador, Honduras. National social attitudes — LGBTQ+ persecution nationally. Identifiable marker — visible ethnicity, language, religion.

When Relocation Is Unreasonable

Even where relocation is technically available, it may be unreasonable due to:

Personal vulnerability — pregnancy, disability, elderly. Cultural/linguistic barriers — cannot integrate into region. Absence of family/social networks — required for survival. Economic non-viability — unable to earn subsistence. Absence of basic services — food, water, shelter. IDP camp conditions — where relocation means IDP camp. Precarious security — even if not persecuted, unsafe.

Country-Specific Analysis

Proving Internal Relocation Infeasibility

Strong cases proactively address internal relocation, particularly for countries where the Home Office / DHS / IRB frequently raises it. Key evidence includes the following.[7]

Country expert report — addressing relocation viability specifically. Prior relocation attempts — where applicant tried relocation and it failed. Personal vulnerability documentation — health, dependents. Family network absence — outside home area. Language/cultural barriers — cannot integrate. Economic non-viability — earnings analysis. National tracking evidence — biometric systems. National reach of persecutor — documented cross-region operations.

Common Errors in Relocation Analysis

Failing to address relocation proactively — silence hurts. Treating availability as sufficient — reasonableness matters. Ignoring personal vulnerability — must be factored. Comparing to home country standards, not living standards. Failing to update country evidence — 2024-2026 conditions vary from 2020.

Internal relocation analysis is where many asylum cases fail. The Home Office frequently argues "just move somewhere else". Strong cases anticipate this argument, address it directly with country expert evidence, and demonstrate why the specific applicant cannot reasonably relocate.
UK Free Movement practitioner guidance

Conclusion

The internal relocation asylum framework is one of the most common grounds for refusal. UNHCR Guidelines No. 4 sets the framework; UK Januzi and AH (Sudan), US 8 CFR 1208.13(b)(2), Canadian Rasaratnam, and EU Qualification Directive Article 8 apply it. Two tests — availability and reasonableness — both must be affirmative for refusal. Strong cases proactively defeat relocation arguments. See our companion five grounds article, non-state persecution article, and well-founded fear article.