Internal Relocation: When the Court Says Just Move

Last updated: 5 October 2026

Photo: Relocating - jan saudek

One of the most common reasons for asylum refusal is simple to state: "You could relocate within your country." In legal language, this is called internal relocation asylum, internal flight alternative (IFA), or internal protection alternative (IPA). The idea is that you can safely move to a different city or region in your home country instead of needing refugee protection abroad. However, the legal test is not just about safety. Courts must also ask if it is reasonable to expect you to live there.[1]

Many asylum claims fail at this stage. The Home Office or DHS says, "Just move to the capital." Yet the law is more complex than that. This asylum guide explains how internal relocation really works. You will learn the full legal test, when relocation fails, and why expert witnesses are critical in these cases.

What Is Internal Relocation?

Internal relocation means moving to a safer part of your own country to avoid persecution. It is built into asylum law because the Refugee Convention only applies when state protection is not available anywhere in the home country. If you can safely and reasonably live elsewhere in your country, you do not need refugee status abroad.[2]

The UNHCR Guidelines on Internal Flight explain this in detail. Relocation is not an automatic rule. Decision-makers must look at your personal situation. They must consider your age, gender, health, ethnicity, and family ties. Moreover, they must examine real conditions in the proposed relocation area. The test is not "is there a safer place on the map?" It is "can this specific person safely and reasonably live there?"

Across all jurisdictions, three key points apply. First, relocation must be considered case by case. Second, the person must be safe from the original persecution in the new area. Third, life in that area must be reasonable, not just survivable.

The Legal Test: Two Key Questions

The legal test for internal relocation has two parts. Both must be met. If either fails, relocation is not available, and the asylum claim should succeed.[3]

Question 1: Will You Be Safe There?

The first part is safety. The court asks if the persecution can reach you in the new location. If the state is your persecutor, the answer is usually no — state power is nationwide. If it is a non-state actor, the question is whether they can find you there. Courts look at surveillance systems, ethnic mixing, checkpoints, and registration rules. For example, in Iran, internal registration makes it very hard to hide from authorities. In Afghanistan, the Taliban's reach now covers the whole country.

Question 2: Is It Reasonable to Expect You to Live There?

The second part is reasonableness. Even if you are safe, is life there fair? Can you access work, housing, medical care, and education? Do you have family support? Will you face discrimination? Will you be destitute? This is the harder test in most cases. It is also where expert witnesses matter most.

The UK Approach: The Januzi "Unduly Harsh" Test

The leading UK case on internal relocation is Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5. The House of Lords set out a clear test. The court must ask whether it would be "unduly harsh" to expect the asylum seeker to relocate. The test is about overall reasonableness, not just physical safety.[4]

Lord Bingham said that the comparison is not with conditions in the host country. A Kabul slum is not compared to a British housing estate. The comparison is with what is acceptable under basic human rights standards. If the conditions would breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (no torture, inhuman or degrading treatment), then relocation is unduly harsh.

The UK Supreme Court revisited this issue in AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State [2007] UKHL 49. The Court confirmed that reasonableness is a holistic question. All personal factors count. Therefore, a healthy young man without dependents may face a different test than a single mother with young children.

The US Approach: Relocation Must Be Reasonable

In the US, the test is set out in 8 CFR 1208.13(b)(3) and 8 CFR 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). If past persecution is shown, the government has to prove that relocation is reasonable. Otherwise, the applicant must show that relocation is not reasonable.[5]

US courts consider several factors. These include ongoing civil strife in the proposed area. Administrative, economic, or judicial infrastructure. Geographic limits. Social and cultural constraints such as age, gender, health, and family ties. Moreover, when the persecutor is the government, there is a strong presumption that internal relocation is not available. This is because state power typically covers the whole territory.

Recent US case law confirms that internal relocation analysis must be specific. In Singh v Garland, 9th Cir 2022, the court held that a general statement that "large cities exist" is not enough. The adjudicator must explain why relocation is reasonable for the particular person.

When Internal Relocation Fails

Certain situations almost always defeat internal relocation arguments. Recognising these helps applicants and lawyers build strong cases. When facts like these are present, expert evidence can make the difference.[6]

Here are common cases where internal relocation fails. First, when the state is the persecutor. In dictatorships such as Eritrea, North Korea, or Iran, state power covers the whole country. Second, when a non-state actor has nationwide reach. The Taliban in Afghanistan since 2021 is the clearest example. Third, when surveillance is strong. China uses ID cards, facial recognition, and internal travel controls. Fourth, when the applicant is a single woman with no family. In Afghanistan, Yemen, or parts of Somalia, this makes independent life impossible. Fifth, when discriminatory conditions mean basic life is blocked — for example, LGBTQ+ people in Uganda, Nigeria, or Iran cannot access housing or work openly anywhere.

Key Case Law on Internal Relocation

Several important cases shape the law on internal relocation. These rulings are used by judges and lawyers every day. Understanding them helps you spot when relocation arguments should fail.[7]

UK Cases

Januzi v SSHD [2006] UKHL 5 is the leading case. It set the "unduly harsh" test. Courts must consider all relevant factors to decide if relocation is reasonable.

AH (Sudan) v SSHD [2007] UKHL 49 confirmed that reasonableness is a holistic, case-by-case test. All personal factors count together.

AS (Afghanistan) CG [2020] UKUT 00130 (IAC) held that Kabul was, at that time, a possible relocation option for some profiles. However, this guidance has been overtaken by the Taliban takeover in 2021. The Upper Tribunal has since updated Afghan country guidance.

SM (Somalia) CG [2014] UKUT 00422 (IAC) addressed internal relocation in Somalia. It remains relevant for Mogadishu and majority clan areas.

US Cases

Matter of M-Z-M-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2012) set out a detailed framework for US internal relocation analysis. It remains the leading Board of Immigration Appeals case.

Singh v Garland (9th Cir 2022) held that adjudicators cannot just assert that large cities provide safe relocation. They must give reasons based on the individual applicant.

The decision-maker... is bound to consider all matters relevant to the reasonableness of internal relocation, not only the safety of the proposed site, but the personal circumstances of the applicant, including age, gender, health, family ties, and any other matter relevant to the individual's ability to survive and live a normal life in the proposed area.
Lord Bingham, Januzi v Secretary of State [2006] UKHL 5, paragraph 21

Building Evidence to Defeat Relocation Arguments

If the Home Office or DHS raises internal relocation, your response must be strong. Weak responses allow the refusal to stand. Therefore, careful preparation is vital. Good evidence focuses on both safety and reasonableness.[8]

Key items to prepare include the following. First, specific country evidence on the proposed relocation area, not just the country in general. Second, a personal statement showing why relocation would be unduly harsh for you. Third, medical or psychological reports if health is a factor. Fourth, evidence of surveillance, tracking, or networks that can reach you. Fifth, evidence about discrimination, housing, and work in the new area. Sixth, an expert report addressing the specific relocation question. For more on related topics, see our country reports and human rights resources.

Conclusion

Internal relocation is one of the most powerful tools governments use to refuse asylum claims. However, the law sets clear limits. The test is not just about safety. It is also about reasonableness. Courts must look at each case in detail. Therefore, when the state is the persecutor, or when the applicant is particularly vulnerable, relocation should usually fail. Strong evidence is the key to defeating relocation arguments. Personal statements, medical reports, and expert witnesses can all make the difference. If your claim has been refused on internal relocation grounds, remember that appeal rights exist and many refusals are overturned with proper country evidence.