Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v AH (Sudan) and others (FC) (Respondents)

The case involved three Sudanese nationals, all in their 30s, who had fled from Darfur due to severe persecution and sought asylum in the UK. The Secretary of State for the Home Department refused their asylum applications, a decision upheld by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) but overturned by the Court of Appeal. The central legal issue was whether it would be unreasonable or unduly harsh for the respondents to be returned to and relocated in Khartoum, Sudan. The House of Lords considered whether the AIT correctly applied the legal test for internal relocation under the Refugee Convention and whether the Court of Appeal was justified in setting aside the AIT's decision.

The House of Lords held that the AIT did not misapply the legal test, and the Court of Appeal was not entitled to disturb the AIT's judgment. The Lords emphasised that the test for internal relocation under the Refugee Convention is distinct from a "well-founded fear of persecution" or a "real risk of ill-treatment" under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision-maker must assess whether it is reasonable to expect the claimant to relocate, considering all relevant circumstances, including the claimant's personal situation and the conditions in the proposed safe haven. The Lords found that the AIT correctly applied this test, taking into account the conditions in Darfur and Khartoum, and did not err in its judgment.

The Lords acknowledged the difficulty of the Tribunal's task but stressed that appellate courts should approach appeals from expert tribunals with caution. They concluded that the AIT's decision was soundly based, and the Court of Appeal's intervention was unwarranted. Therefore, the House of Lords allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal's order, and reinstated the AIT's decision upholding the Secretary of State's refusal of asylum.