Internal Relocation: When the Court Says "Just Move Somewhere Else"

Last updated: 5 October 2026

Photo: United Nations - Mick Krever

Internal relocation is the legal doctrine that a refugee claim can be refused if the applicant could safely and reasonably relocate to another part of their country of origin. The doctrine is also called "internal flight alternative" (IFA), "internal protection alternative" (IPA), or "internal relocation alternative." Furthermore, it is recognised in the UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection No. 4, the EU Qualification Directive (Article 8), and case law in every major jurisdiction. As a result, internal relocation is one of the most common reasons asylum claims are refused. This article explains the test, the limits of the doctrine, and how applicants can challenge an internal relocation finding.[1]

For wider context, see the asylum guide hub.

The Doctrine: When Internal Relocation Applies

The internal relocation doctrine arises where the applicant fears persecution in one part of their country but could safely live in another part. UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection No. 4 (2003) set out the framework. Furthermore, the doctrine is grounded in the Convention's surrogacy principle: refugee protection is a substitute for the protection of one's own state, only available where domestic protection has failed. As a result, if domestic protection is available somewhere in the country, the applicant should seek that first. However, the doctrine has significant limits — relocation is rarely the simple "just move" that decision-makers sometimes treat it as.[2]

"The relocation alternative analysis is not merely a question of whether the individual could live in another part of the country, but whether they could do so reasonably, without facing renewed persecution or unduly harsh living conditions."UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection No. 4, §22

The Two-Limb Test: Safety and Reasonableness

The internal relocation test has two limbs. First, safety: would the applicant be safe from persecution in the proposed location? Second, reasonableness: would relocation be reasonable in the applicant's specific circumstances? Furthermore, both limbs must be satisfied for relocation to be a valid basis for refusal. The leading UK case is Januzi v SSHD [2006] UKHL 5, where the House of Lords adopted the "reasonableness" test (sometimes called "undue harshness"). As a result, the assessment is highly fact-sensitive.[3]

Limb 1: Safety in the proposed location

The proposed relocation site must be safe from the original persecution and from new persecution. UNHCR §17 makes clear that the safety analysis must consider whether the agent of persecution can or would extend reach to the location. Furthermore, in cases of state persecution, internal relocation is generally unavailable because the state has reach throughout the country. As a result, internal relocation is most relevant where the persecutor is non-state and geographically limited. Therefore, claimants from gang violence (Central America), local militia conflicts, or family persecution often face the test most acutely.[4]

Limb 2: Reasonableness of the relocation

Reasonableness is the more contested limb. UNHCR §22 lists factors: personal circumstances (age, gender, health, family ties); past persecution and resulting trauma; safety on travel routes; respect for human rights; economic survival; access to family or community support. Furthermore, Januzi held that the test is "would it be unreasonable, having regard to the standards of basic civil, political, and socio-economic human rights, to expect the person to relocate?" As a result, even an objectively safe relocation can be unreasonable if it would involve destitution, isolation, or denial of basic rights.[5]

State Persecution and Internal Relocation

Where the persecutor is the state, internal relocation is rarely available. UNHCR Guidelines §13 explain: "where the agent of persecution is a state actor, the presumption is that internal protection is not available." Furthermore, Member States have generally accepted this in cases of central government persecution (e.g., Iran, China, North Korea). As a result, state-persecution claimants should be granted refugee status without an internal relocation finding. However, decision-makers sometimes attempt to relocate state-persecution claimants to "low-risk" areas — this is generally legally erroneous.[6]

Non-State Persecution: Where Relocation Most Often Arises

Internal relocation arises most often in non-state persecution cases. Examples include: gang violence in Central America (relocation within country claimed); domestic violence (relocation away from abuser claimed); honour-based violence (relocation from family claimed); religious extremism by non-state militias. Furthermore, the test in these cases must consider whether the non-state actor has nationwide reach (gang networks, family connections, religious networks) and whether state protection in the proposed area is sufficient. As a result, even apparently localised non-state persecution can defeat relocation if the actor or their network is genuinely nationwide.[7]

Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

UNHCR Guidelines §34 hold that "the decision-maker bears the burden of identifying the proposed area and supporting its appropriateness." Furthermore, the applicant must then have a meaningful opportunity to address the proposed location. As a result, a vague suggestion that the applicant "could go somewhere else" is legally insufficient. The decision-maker must specify the location, address safety, and address reasonableness for that location. Therefore, applicants should challenge generic relocation findings on procedural grounds.[8]

Evidence to Defeat Internal Relocation

To defeat an internal relocation argument, applicants should provide: country expert reports addressing the proposed location specifically; UNHCR position papers and country guidance updates; reports on the persecutor's reach (national networks); medical reports on health needs requiring specific locations; family situation evidence (lone women, unaccompanied minors); economic conditions (housing, employment, services). Furthermore, social media surveillance evidence may demonstrate that the persecutor would track the applicant nationwide. As a result, an evidence-based defence of an internal relocation argument is achievable. Therefore, applicants should not concede relocation issues without rigorous challenge.[9]

Conclusion: A Significant But Limited Doctrine

Internal relocation asylum is a significant doctrine but not an automatic basis for refusal. The two-limb test (safety and reasonableness) imposes meaningful constraints. Furthermore, state persecution generally precludes relocation, and non-state persecution requires careful analysis of the actor's reach. As a result, applicants and representatives should treat internal relocation findings as challengeable rather than determinative. With strong country evidence and personalised reasonableness arguments, many internal relocation refusals can be successfully appealed.