Internal Relocation in Asylum: Five Questions Tribunals Ask

Last updated: 9 October 2026

Internal relocation is the argument that a person at risk in their home area could move to a safer part of the same country. If that is possible, they do not need asylum abroad. In the UK and the US, it is a common reason to refuse a claim that is otherwise accepted. However, a refusal letter that says "you could just move" is not the end of the matter. Tribunals must work through a set of questions, and each question needs evidence.[1]

This guide explains the five questions a judge actually asks about internal relocation, in the order they usually arise. It covers the UK test in section 35 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and paragraph 339O of the Immigration Rules. It also covers the US rule in 8 CFR 1208.13, including a trap in its online text. Finally, it shows where a country expert report helps and where it should stop. Last reviewed: October 2026.

What is internal relocation in asylum law?

Internal relocation, also called the internal flight alternative, starts from an accepted risk. The decision-maker agrees that the person would face persecution in their home area. Then it asks whether another part of the country would be both safe and reasonable. If the answer is yes, the person is not a refugee. The Refugee Convention protects people who cannot find safety anywhere in their own country.[2]

UNHCR's Guidelines on International Protection No. 4 split the inquiry into two parts. The first is a relevance analysis: is there a place the person can reach where the risk ends? The second is a reasonableness analysis: can the person live a relatively normal life there without facing undue hardship? Both the UK and the US follow this broad shape, although the wording and the burden of proof differ.[2]

Where the test comes from in each country

The UK guidance for caseworkers is in the Home Office instruction 'Assessing credibility and refugee status'. Version 13.0 has a section on internal relocation. The claimant must still support the claim. However, decision-makers "must demonstrate" that relocation is reasonable or not unduly harsh. In other words, the refusal letter must explain why the proposed place is safe and reasonable for this person.[3]

In practice, internal relocation decides many cases where the persecutor is a gang, a clan, a militia or a family. For example, our report on relocation in Colombia shows how armed groups trace people across regions. Likewise, our analysis of al-Shabaab's intelligence network in Somalia tests the same question for Mogadishu.

The five questions on internal relocation, step by step

Judges rarely number these questions. Still, a well-reasoned decision answers each of them, and a decision that skips one may be open to challenge. Each question below starts with a short answer, then sets out the UK and US law.

Question 1: Who is the persecutor, and how far does their reach go?

Short answer: the identity of the persecutor shapes the whole analysis. If the state is the persecutor, relocation will rarely work, because the state usually acts across its whole territory. If a private actor is the persecutor, the tribunal asks whether it has the motive and the means to find the person elsewhere.

US law turns this into a rule. Where the persecutor is a government or is government-sponsored, the regulation presumes that relocation would not be reasonable. DHS can rebut that presumption only by a preponderance of the evidence. UNHCR takes the same view. Similarly, the EU asylum agency's practical guide starts from the point that state actors operate across the whole country.[4]

UK law has no written presumption of this kind. Nevertheless, the reach of the actor is a factual question at the heart of the risk assessment. For instance, a tribunal will ask whether police databases, checkpoints, informants or family networks would expose the person. This is where specific country evidence matters most. A general statement that "the gang operates nationally" carries little weight. In contrast, evidence of how this particular group tracks people who leave usually carries much more.

Question 2: Is there a specific place where the risk ends?

Short answer: the decision-maker must identify an actual place, not "elsewhere in the country". In that place, the risk of persecution must fall below the legal threshold. The person must not have to stay one step ahead of the persecutor.

Section 35(1) of the 2022 Act deals with a person who has no well-founded fear "in a part of their country". If they can reasonably travel to and remain in that part, they are not a refugee. Paragraph 339O applies the same idea to humanitarian protection. Both provisions assume a named part of the country.[5]

The US Board of Immigration Appeals is more explicit. In Matter of M-Z-M-R-, it held that conditions in the new area must be "substantially better" than those that caused the fear. Moreover, after past persecution, DHS must show "a specific area of the country" where the risk falls below the well-founded fear level. The Board sent the case back because the judge had not made clear findings about the proposed town.[6]

Question 3: Can the person travel there safely and legally?

Short answer: a safe city is no use if the journey there is dangerous. So the tribunal asks how the person would get there. It also asks whether the route passes checkpoints, hostile areas or the persecutor's territory.

The Home Office guidance lists safe travel as a separate condition. Relocation is reasonable only if the person "can travel there safely". Similarly, M-Z-M-R- requires the area to be "practically, safely, and legally accessible". If the evidence suggests it may not be, DHS must prove that it is.[7]

One limit applies in the UK. Section 35(2)(b) and paragraph 339O(ii)(c) tell the decision-maker to ignore "technical obstacles" to travel. A missing travel document that the state could issue is one example. However, an obstacle that exposes the person to harm, such as a checkpoint run by the persecutor, is not technical. It goes to safety.[5]

Question 4: Would it be unduly harsh, or unreasonable, to live there?

Short answer: UK judges ask whether relocation would be "unduly harsh" for this person. US judges ask whether it would be reasonable under all the circumstances. Either way, the judge must look at the individual, not an average returnee.

In Januzi, Lord Bingham framed the test as whether relocation is reasonable or "unduly harsh". In AH (Sudan), he added that the inquiry must focus on the particular applicant. Their "age, gender, experience, health, skills and family ties may all be very relevant". Later, in SC (Jamaica), the Supreme Court warned that "the stringency of the reasonableness test is not to be underestimated".[8]

The Home Office guidance gives a practical checklist. Caseworkers must consider travel, culture, religion, ethnic or language differences, health care, jobs, family ties and childcare. They must also consider the person's physical and mental health and any support from civil society or remittances from abroad. Furthermore, the guidance accepts that single, divorced or widowed women and lone parents may face particular barriers. This applies especially where society expects women to have male protection.[3]

The US factors are similar. Under the version of the rule now in effect, adjudicators consider other serious harm in the proposed area and any civil strife. They also look at infrastructure, geography, and social and cultural constraints such as "age, gender, health, and social and familial ties". The regulation adds that these factors may or may not be relevant, depending on the case.[9]

Two limits also matter. First, the comparison is with life in the home country, not in the UK. As Lord Bingham put it, the Convention does not aim at "a general levelling-up of living standards around the world". Second, a person's crimes in the UK do not make relocation reasonable simply because of what they "deserve". In SC (Jamaica), the Supreme Court held that importing that value judgment was an error of law. Criminal convictions count only for their practical effect, for example on job prospects.[10]

Question 5: Who must prove it, and to what standard?

Short answer: in the UK, the burden is formally on the claimant, at a low standard. In practice, though, the issue is a broad judgement. In the US, the burden depends on past persecution and on who the persecutor is.

Under section 32(5) of the 2022 Act, relocation is part of the second stage of the well-founded fear test. That stage uses the "reasonable likelihood" standard. In ASJ (Somalia) [2025] EWCA Civ 282, the Court of Appeal said that, strictly, the claimant must show to that standard that relocation is unduly harsh. Even so, Lewis LJ added that relocation decisions "are unlikely to be determined or influenced" by the burden of proof. The question is a holistic assessment of all the circumstances.[11]

In the US, the rule now applied works in three ways. If the applicant proves past persecution, DHS must show that relocation is possible and reasonable. Likewise, DHS carries the burden where the persecutor is the government or government-sponsored. In other cases, the applicant must show that relocation would not be reasonable.[12]

The same relocation test applies to withholding of removal, under 8 CFR 1208.16(b). Our guide to withholding of removal and CAT explains how those claims differ. Under the Convention Against Torture, by contrast, relocation is not a separate test. It is one piece of evidence on whether torture is more likely than not.[13] In addition, since May 2024, USCIS has told asylum officers to consider internal relocation at the credible fear stage. As a result, the issue can now arise at the first interview.[14]

How expert evidence answers the internal relocation questions

A country expert cannot decide whether relocation is unduly harsh. That is a legal conclusion for the judge. The December 2025 CGRS advisory for US experts gives an example of a legal conclusion to avoid: "It is neither safe nor reasonable for [Applicant X] to relocate internally". Instead, the expert should give the facts that let the judge reach that conclusion.[15]

In the UK, the First-tier Tribunal's 2024 Practice Direction requires focused reports of up to 20 pages. The letter of instruction must be attached. The Practice Direction also treats country guidance cases as authoritative, unless a party shows good reason to depart from them. Therefore, an expert who writes about relocation to Mogadishu or Kabul must engage with the current country guidance.[16]

In practice, a useful expert report maps onto the five questions:

1. Capacity of the persecutor: size, networks, links to the police, and documented cases of people traced after moving.
2. Proposed area: whether the persecutor is present there, and how the risk compares with the home area.
3. Journey: routes, checkpoints, documents needed, and who controls each stage.
4. Life on arrival: housing, registration rules, jobs, health care, and how people with the client's profile are treated.
5. Support: whether family, clan or community support is realistic, and whether remittances would reach the person.

ASJ (Somalia) shows why point five matters. The appellant was a young man from a minority clan who had lost contact with his mother. The appeal turned on whether he would have family, clan or remittance support in Mogadishu. In the end, the tribunal found that he would, and the Court of Appeal upheld that finding. Evidence on support networks often decides the reasonableness question.[17] Where health is in issue, a medical report should sit alongside the country report. Our guide to Istanbul Protocol medical reports explains how tribunals weigh them.

Our video on how we assess return risk shows the method an expert uses to test a proposed place of relocation.

YouTube video player

Common questions about internal relocation

Can the Home Office say I could live "anywhere else" in my country?

Not in a properly reasoned decision. Section 35 and paragraph 339O refer to a part of the country. The guidance also asks caseworkers to test the proposed area against the person's circumstances. A vague refusal is a ground of challenge.

Does internal relocation apply to humanitarian protection?

Yes. Paragraph 339O(i)(b) applies the same idea to the risk of serious harm. In SC (Jamaica), the Supreme Court applied the same test to an Article 3 claim.

Does a criminal record make relocation reasonable?

No, not as a matter of what the person deserves. SC (Jamaica) held that this is an error of law. A conviction is relevant only for its practical effect, such as on finding work.

Is a single man always able to relocate?

No. Some country guidance has found relocation reasonable for healthy single men. One example is the pre-2021 Kabul guidance in AS (Safety of Kabul) Afghanistan CG [2020] UKUT 130 (IAC).[18] Even so, the test is always individual, and health, clan, skills and support can change the answer.

If I hid in another city before I fled, does that prove I can relocate?

Not by itself. In M-Z-M-R-, the Board asked whether the applicant was in hiding there and whether the authorities kept searching for him. Time spent in hiding says little about whether a normal life is possible there.

Where to get help

Internal relocation is a legal and factual question at the same time. First, get legal advice. In the UK, see a solicitor or accredited adviser; in the US, see an immigration attorney or accredited representative. Second, ask the representative to identify the exact place the Home Office or DHS proposes, and the reasons given. Third, collect evidence on the five questions above, including statements from family about support and contact.

Where the refusal turns on relocation, a country expert can give sourced evidence on the persecutor's reach and the proposed area. You can find an expert witness for the relevant country. Your representative should send the expert the refusal letter and the client's full profile. That way, the report answers the disputed issues.

Conclusion

Internal relocation turns on more than whether a safe city exists. Tribunals ask who the persecutor is and which place is proposed. Then they ask whether the person can get there safely and whether life there would be unduly harsh. Finally, they ask who must prove each point. For UK claims, section 35, paragraph 339O and the line of cases from Januzi to ASJ (Somalia) govern the answers. In the US, the pre-2020 version of 8 CFR 1208.13(b)(3) remains in effect because of the Pangea injunction. Either way, the best response to a "just move" refusal answers each question with evidence about this person and this place.