Januzi v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department), (2006) 345 N.R. 345 (HL)

• Case Date: February 15, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 345 N.R. 345 (HL)

Januzi v. U.K. (2006), 345 N.R. 345 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. FE.047

Januzi (FC) (appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Depart­ment and Others

([2006] UKHL 5)

Indexed As: Januzi v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department)

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Carswell and Lord Mance

February 15, 2006.

Summary:

The issue on this appeal was whether, when a refugee claim­ant had an internal flight alternative in his country of origin, the place of relocation had to meet the basic norms of civil, political and socio-economic rights before relocation there could be con­sidered reasonable.

The House of Lords answered this ques­tion in the negative.

Aliens - Topic 1323.2

Admission - Refugee protection, Conven­tion refugees and persons in need of pro­tection - Persecution - Protection of coun­try of nationality (i.e., internal flight alter­native or place of relocation) - The House of Lords held that the issue of whether a par­ticular internal flight alternative location would be unduly harsh was not to be judged by considering whether the quality of life in the place of relocation met the basic norms of civil, political and socio-economic human rights - There was no basis for such a test in the wording of art. 1A(2) of the United Nations Convention Re­lating to the Status of Refugees - Such a test, invited a comparison between the conditions which prevailed in the place of relocation and those which prevailed in the country in which asylum was sought - Con­di­tions in the country of asylum had no part to play in deciding whether a refugee claimant was entitled to seek asy­lum in that country.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Prague Airport et al.; Ex parte Euro­pean Roma Rights Centre et al., [2004] N.R. Uned. 238; [2005] 2 A.C. 1; [2005] 2 W.L.R. 1; [2004] UKHL 55, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Office); Ex parte Adan, [1999] 1 A.C. 293; 225 N.R. 126 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 4, 64].

Applicant A v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997), 190 C.L.R. 225 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Rodriguez v. United States of America (1987), 480 U.S. 522, refd to. [para. 6].

Rasaratnam v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 F.C. 706; 140 N.R. 138 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Thirunavukkarasu v. Minister of Employ­ment and Immigration, [1994] 1 F.C. 589; 163 N.R. 232; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 682; 22 Imm. L.R.(2d) 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 47].

Butler v. Attorney General, [1999] NZAR 205 (N.Z.C.A.), not folld. [para. 9].

Refugee Appeal No. 71684/99, [2000] INLR 165 (N.Z. Ref. Status. App. Auth.), not folld. [para. 9].

Randhawa v. Minister for Immigration, Lo­cal Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994), 52 F.C.R. 437 (Aust. F.C.), not folld. [para. 10].

Perampalam v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, [1999] F.C.A. 165; 84 F.C.R. 274 (Aust. F.C.), not folld. [para. 10].

Al-Amidi v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, [2000] F.C.A. 1081; 177 A.L.R. 506, not folld. [para. 10].

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Robinson, [1998] Q.B. 929 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Karanakaran v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department), [2000] 3 All E.R. 449, refd to. [paras. 11, 53].

Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citi­zenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164; 266 N.R. 380 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 12]; refd to. [para. 67].

E et al. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2003] EWCA 1032; [2004] Q.B. 531 (C.A.), folld. [para. 13]; refd to. [paras. 53, 65].

Svazas v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2002] EWCA Civ 74; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 1891, refd to. [para. 21].

Gashi and Nikshiqi v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1997] I.N.L.R. 96 (Imm. App. Trib.), refd to. [para. 27].

MM (Zaghawa - Risk on Return - internal Flight) (Sudan), [2005] UKIAT 00069 (Imm. App. Trib.), refd to. [para. 37].

AB (return of Southern Sudanese) Sudan CG, [2004] UKIAT 00260 (Imm. App. Trib.), refd to. [para. 40].

AE (Relocation - Darfur - Khartoum an option) Sudan CG, [2005] UKIAT 00101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Statutes Noticed:

United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, art. 1A(2) [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Feller, Turk and Nicholson, Refugee Pro­tection in International Law, United Nations High Commissioner for Refu­gees, Global Consultations on Inter­na­tional Protection (2003), pp. 23 to 28, 405 to 411 [para. 14].

Fortin, The Meaning of Protection in the Refugee Definition (2001), 12 Inter. J. Refugee L. 548, generally [para. 66].

Goodwin-Gill, Guy S., The Refugee in International Law (2nd Ed. 1996), p. 74 [para. 13].

Hathaway, James C., and Foster, Internal Protection/Relocation/Flight Alternative as an Aspect of Refugee Status Determi­nation (2001), p. 43 [para. 14].

Hathaway, James C., International Refugee Law: The Michigan Guidelines on the Internal Protection Alternative (1999), para. 21 [para. 14].

Hathaway, James C., The Law of Refugee Status (1991), p. 134 [paras. 9, 66].

Storey, H., The Internal Flight Alternative Test: The Jurisprudence Re-examined (1998), 10 Inter. J. of Refugee L. 499, pp. 516 [para. 20]; 529 [para. 11].

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Guidelines on International Protection (July 23, 2003), paras. 7 II(a), 28, 29, 30 [para. 20]; 7 I(b) [para. 21].

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (1979), para. 91 [para. 7].

Counsel:

Nicholas Blake, Q.C., Frances Webber and Stephanie Harrison (instructed by Tyn­dall­woods), for the appellants in the Januzi case;

Manjit Gill, Q.C., and Abid Mahmood (in­structed by Blakemores for Mr. Hamid);

Manjit Gill, Q.C., and Basharat Ali (solici­tor advocate) (instructed by Noden & Company for Mr. Gaafar);

Manjit Gill, Q.C., and Christopher Jacobs (instructed by White Ryland for Mr. Mohammed);

Rabinder Singh, Q.C., Lisa Giovannetti and Jason Braier (instructed by Treasury Solicitor), for the respondents.

Agents:

Not disclosed.

These appeals were heard before Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Bir­ken­head, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Cars­well and Lord Mance of the House of Lords.

The decision of the House was delivered on February 15, 2006, when the following opinions were filed:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill - see para­graphs 1 to 22;

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead - see para­graph 23;

Lord Hope of Craighead - see paragraphs 24 to 60;

Lord Carswell - see paragraphs 61 to 69;

Lord Mance - see paragraph 70.