The Internal Flight Alternative Test: The Jurisprudence Re-examined

International Journal of Refugee Law

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 498-532

  Storey, Hugo ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASYLUM SEEKER; LEGISLATION; REFUGEE;

EID: 0032412578     PISSN: 09538186     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (140)

1. Although this study cites mostly Anglo-American case law, the author has sought to take full account of other available sources. A special debt is owed to the recent study by Jean-Yves Carlier, Dirk Vanheule, Klaus Hullman and Carlos Pena Galiano (Eds, Who ùa Refugee: A Comparative Case Law Study, Kluwer Law Publishers, 1997. That study includes systematic survey of the 'internal flight issue' under the broader sub-heading of 'Place' issues. The author also acknowledges his debt to Judge G. de Moffarts of Belgium whose paper on 'Refugee status and the IFA' enriched his own knowledge of the European jurisprudence. That paper is now published in Refugee and Asylum Law: Assessing the Scope for Judicial Protection. IARLJ, Second Conference, Nijmegen, 9-11 Jan. 1997 (Nederlands centrum buitenlanders, 1997). It also cites several important continental studies that have discussed the IFA, including by R. Femhout, P. Nicolaus, Van der Veen and PJ. Van Dijk. Two studies by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada have also proved immensely useful: 'Commentary: Internal Flight: When is it an alternative?' IRB Legal Services, Ottawa, Canada, Apr. 1994 (hereafter 'IRB 1994 Commentary'); and 'New Guidelines on Refugee Claims Related to Civilian Non-Combatants Fearing Persecution in Civil War Situations' (hereafter 'IRB 1996 Civil War Guidelines'), IRB Ottawa, Canada, 1996.
2. Although this study cites mostly Anglo-American case law, the author has sought to take full account of other available sources. A special debt is owed to the recent study by Jean-Yves Carlier, Dirk Vanheule, Klaus Hullman and Carlos Pena Galiano (Eds, Who ùa Refugee: A Comparative Case Law Study, Kluwer Law Publishers, 1997. That study includes systematic survey of the 'internal flight issue' under the broader sub-heading of 'Place' issues. The author also acknowledges his debt to Judge G. de Moffarts of Belgium whose paper on 'Refugee status and the IFA' enriched his own knowledge of the European jurisprudence. That paper is now published in Refugee and Asylum Law: Assessing the Scope for Judicial Protection. IARLJ, Second Conference, Nijmegen, 9-11 Jan. 1997 (Nederlands centrum buitenlanders, 1997). It also cites several important continental studies that have discussed the IFA, including by R. Femhout, P. Nicolaus, Van der Veen and PJ. Van Dijk. Two studies by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada have also proved immensely useful: 'Commentary: Internal Flight: When is it an alternative?' IRB Legal Services, Ottawa, Canada, Apr. 1994 (hereafter 'IRB 1994 Commentary'); and 'New Guidelines on Refugee Claims Related to Civilian Non-Combatants Fearing Persecution in Civil War Situations' (hereafter 'IRB 1996 Civil War Guidelines'), IRB Ottawa, Canada, 1996.
3. Although this study cites mostly Anglo-American case law, the author has sought to take full account of other available sources. A special debt is owed to the recent study by Jean-Yves Carlier, Dirk Vanheule, Klaus Hullman and Carlos Pena Galiano (Eds, Who ùa Refugee: A Comparative Case Law Study, Kluwer Law Publishers, 1997. That study includes systematic survey of the 'internal flight issue' under the broader sub-heading of 'Place' issues. The author also acknowledges his debt to Judge G. de Moffarts of Belgium whose paper on 'Refugee status and the IFA' enriched his own knowledge of the European jurisprudence. That paper is now published in Refugee and Asylum Law: Assessing the Scope for Judicial Protection. IARLJ, Second Conference, Nijmegen, 9-11 Jan. 1997 (Nederlands centrum buitenlanders, 1997). It also cites several important continental studies that have discussed the IFA, including by R. Femhout, P. Nicolaus, Van der Veen and PJ. Van Dijk. Two studies by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada have also proved immensely useful: 'Commentary: Internal Flight: When is it an alternative?' IRB Legal Services, Ottawa, Canada, Apr. 1994 (hereafter 'IRB 1994 Commentary'); and 'New Guidelines on Refugee Claims Related to Civilian Non-Combatants Fearing Persecution in Civil War Situations' (hereafter 'IRB 1996 Civil War Guidelines'), IRB Ottawa, Canada, 1996.
4. Although this study cites mostly Anglo-American case law, the author has sought to take full account of other available sources. A special debt is owed to the recent study by Jean-Yves Carlier, Dirk Vanheule, Klaus Hullman and Carlos Pena Galiano (Eds, Who ùa Refugee: A Comparative Case Law Study, Kluwer Law Publishers, 1997. That study includes systematic survey of the 'internal flight issue' under the broader sub-heading of 'Place' issues. The author also acknowledges his debt to Judge G. de Moffarts of Belgium whose paper on 'Refugee status and the IFA' enriched his own knowledge of the European jurisprudence. That paper is now published in Refugee and Asylum Law: Assessing the Scope for Judicial Protection. IARLJ, Second Conference, Nijmegen, 9-11 Jan. 1997 (Nederlands centrum buitenlanders, 1997). It also cites several important continental studies that have discussed the IFA, including by R. Femhout, P. Nicolaus, Van der Veen and PJ. Van Dijk. Two studies by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada have also proved immensely useful: 'Commentary: Internal Flight: When is it an alternative?' IRB Legal Services, Ottawa, Canada, Apr. 1994 (hereafter 'IRB 1994 Commentary'); and 'New Guidelines on Refugee Claims Related to Civilian Non-Combatants Fearing Persecution in Civil War Situations' (hereafter 'IRB 1996 Civil War Guidelines'), IRB Ottawa, Canada, 1996.
5. ([1994] 1 FC 589,592 (FC:CA).
6. See Hathaway, J., The Law of Refugee Status, Butterworths, Canada, Ltd. 1991,133; Goodwin-Gill, G.S., The Refugee in International Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1st ed., 1983, 2nd ed., 1996; Grahl-Madsen, A., The Status of Refugees in International Law, vol. 1, 1966, 45-6.
7. See Hathaway, J., The Law of Refugee Status, Butterworths, Canada, Ltd. 1991,133; Goodwin-Gill, G.S., The Refugee in International Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1st ed., 1983, 2nd ed., 1996; Grahl-Madsen, A., The Status of Refugees in International Law, vol. 1, 1966, 45-6.
8. See Hathaway, J., The Law of Refugee Status, Butterworths, Canada, Ltd. 1991,133; Goodwin-Gill, G.S., The Refugee in International Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1st ed., 1983, 2nd ed., 1996; Grahl-Madsen, A., The Status of Refugees in International Law, vol. 1, 1966, 45-6.
9. In the European context, see, for example, Spijkerboer, T., 'A Bird's Eye View of Asylum Law in Eight European Countries', Amsterdam, Dutch Refugee Council 1993. The 'internal flight alternative' was one heading under which the author found there to be significant 'interpretational divergencies'. See further Lambert, H., Seeking Asylum: Comparative Law and Practice in Selected European Countries, 1995 Kluwer Academic Publishers, 88, 90, 50.
10. In the European context, see, for example, Spijkerboer, T., 'A Bird's Eye View of Asylum Law in Eight European Countries', Amsterdam, Dutch Refugee Council 1993. The 'internal flight alternative' was one heading under which the author found there to be significant 'interpretational divergencies'. See further Lambert, H., Seeking Asylum: Comparative Law and Practice in Selected European Countries, 1995 Kluwer Academic Publishers, 88, 90, 50.
11. Circa 1980: see Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court Germany) 2 July 1980, 1 BvR 147/80, BVerfGE, 54, 341, InfAusIR, 1980, 338. de Moffarts, above note 1, cites studies by Fernhout (1990) and Nicolaus (1984) in relation to German and Dutch jurisprudence.
12. Hathaway, Refugee Status, 133-4.
13. Convention concerning the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 1969: 1001 UNTS 46 (emphasis added).
14. Hathaway, Refugee Status, 18-19.
15. 'Joint Position defined by the Council on the Basis of Article K. 3 of the Treaty of European Union on the Harmonised Application of the Term "Refugee" in Article 1 of the Geneva Convention', Mar. 1996: OJ 13 Mar. 1996 No L63. Point 4, which contains a reformulation of what constitutes persecution within the meaning of art. IA, contains a specific footnote to clarify that its terms art 'without prejudice to point 8'. Cf. the earlier Note of the Presidency of the Council of the European Union of 20 February 1995 to the Asylum Working Party (4245/l/95,Rev. 1, para. 7).
16. Shacknove, A., 'Who Is a Refugee?' 95 Ethics 274, 277; for judicial approval and restatement, see La Forest J in Canada v Ward (1993) 103 DLR (4th).
17. Shacknove, A., 'Who Is a Refugee?' 95 Ethics 274, 277; for judicial approval and restatement, see La Forest J in Canada v Ward (1993) 103 DLR (4th).
18. See Zazkazi v MEI [1991] 3 FC 605(CA).
19. Hathaway, Refugee Status, 133-4.
20. Haines, R.P.G., 'International Judicial Cooperation in Asylum Law' in Care, G. and Storey, H. (eds), Asylum Law, London 1995.
21. 'An Overview of Protection Issues in Western Europe: Legislative Trends and Positions Taken by UNHCR', UNHCR, Geneva, 1995, 27, 30-2; hereafter referred to as '1995 UNHCR Position Statement'.
22. For references to European jurisprudence, see above note 1. Very useful guidance on the role of judicial and quasi-judicial decision-makers can be found in paras. 14-22 of the Opinion of Advocate-General Léger in the case of EL Yassini, currently before the European Court of Justice: Case C-416/96.
23. Rasaratnam v. MEI [1992] 1 FC 706, 709-11 (CA); Thirunavukkarasu vMEI [1994] 1 FC 589(CA).
24. Rasaratnam v. MEI [1992] 1 FC 706, 709-11 (CA); Thirunavukkarasu vMEI [1994] 1 FC 589(CA).
25. But see now Goodwin-Gill, G.S., The Refugee in International Law, 2nd ed., 1996, 74-5.
26. Hathaway, Refugee Status, 18-19, 133-4.
27. For reference by EU Member States to the 'relocation principle', see 1996 EU Joint Position, above note 9.
28. Butler v Attorney-General and the Refugee Status Appeals Authority CA 181/97, 13 Oct. 1997.
29. Cf. IRB 1996, Civil War Guidelines, 13; Re RS Refugee Appeal No. 523/92 (decision of the New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority, R.P.G. Haines, Chair, 31-2); Butler v Attorney General and RSAA, above note 20.
30. Cf. IRB 1996, Civil War Guidelines, 13; Re RS Refugee Appeal No. 523/92 (decision of the New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority, R.P.G. Haines, Chair, 31-2); Butler v Attorney General and RSAA, above note 20.
31. Cf. IRB 1996, Civil War Guidelines, 13; Re RS Refugee Appeal No. 523/92 (decision of the New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority, R.P.G. Haines, Chair, 31-2); Butler v Attorney General and RSAA, above note 20.
32. Raad van Staat, 18 Aug. 1978 (Turkish Christians), Rechtspraak Vreendelingenrecht (RV) 1978, Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen No.30; Raad van Staat, 21 June 1979, (Turkish Christians II) RV 1979 No.8. de Moffarts, above note 1, cites Fernhout, R., Erkenning en toelating als vluchteling in Nederland, Kluwer-Deventer, 1990 No. 147, 113 and Nicolaus, P., 'Kein Asylrecht trotz Verfolgung? Eine Studie zum Problem der inlandishchen Fluchtalternative', ZDWF Schriftenreihe No. 6 Nov. 1984 in support of his observation that the IFA was 'probably first used in German jurisprudence'.
33. Raad van Staat, 18 Aug. 1978 (Turkish Christians), Rechtspraak Vreendelingenrecht (RV) 1978, Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen No.30; Raad van Staat, 21 June 1979, (Turkish Christians II) RV 1979 No.8. de Moffarts, above note 1, cites Fernhout, R., Erkenning en toelating als vluchteling in Nederland, Kluwer-Deventer, 1990 No. 147, 113 and Nicolaus, P., 'Kein Asylrecht trotz Verfolgung? Eine Studie zum Problem der inlandishchen Fluchtalternative', ZDWF Schriftenreihe No. 6 Nov. 1984 in support of his observation that the IFA was 'probably first used in German jurisprudence'.
34. Raad van Staat, 18 Aug. 1978 (Turkish Christians), Rechtspraak Vreendelingenrecht (RV) 1978, Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen No.30; Raad van Staat, 21 June 1979, (Turkish Christians II) RV 1979 No.8. de Moffarts, above note 1, cites Fernhout, R., Erkenning en toelating als vluchteling in Nederland, Kluwer-Deventer, 1990 No. 147, 113 and Nicolaus, P., 'Kein Asylrecht trotz Verfolgung? Eine Studie zum Problem der inlandishchen Fluchtalternative', ZDWF Schriftenreihe No. 6 Nov. 1984 in support of his observation that the IFA was 'probably first used in German jurisprudence'.
35. Karnail Singh, Imm. App. Bd Dec. M83-1189: CLIC Notes 62.4, 14 Nov. 1983; ex parte Jonah [1985]Imm AR 7.
36. This author also doubts the validity of approaching the 1979 UNHCR Handbook as if it were an amplification of Convention principles. In fact, the Handbook only reflects the state of knowledge in 1979; it was not meant to constitute an authoritative guide to later State practice or be considered everlastingly as a 'contemporary definition' of the Convention itself.
37. Zalzazi a MEI [1991] 3 FC 605(CA); Ward Vaa Canada (1993) 103 DLR (4th).
38. Zalzazi a MEI [1991] 3 FC 605(CA); Ward Vaa Canada (1993) 103 DLR (4th).
39. Re RS Refugee Appeal No 523/92, above note 21, 47.
40. Rasaratnam v Canada [1992] FC 706 (FC:CA). See also the view of Judge David Pearl in Manoharan (1706), Immigration Appeal Tribunal, 1 Jul. 1998: '. . . the standard of proof in our view is the ordinary civil standard of a balance of probabilities. This is the position taken in the Canadian case of Rasaratnam. The lower standard developed in the Tribunal case of Kaja [1995] Imm AR 1 of a reasonable likelihood relates to the fear of persecution and whether that fear is well-founded It is accepted by all that the appellant in this case will not be persecuted in Colombo. The question is "would it be unduly harsh?" This is a very different question and we adopt the approach taken in Rasaratnam.' Whether this departure from the approach established by the higher UK courts in Sivakumaran [1998] 1 All ER 193 will be approved by them is open to considerable doubt.
41. Rasaratnam v Canada [1992] FC 706 (FC:CA). See also the view of Judge David Pearl in Manoharan (1706), Immigration Appeal Tribunal, 1 Jul. 1998: '. . . the standard of proof in our view is the ordinary civil standard of a balance of probabilities. This is the position taken in the Canadian case of Rasaratnam. The lower standard developed in the Tribunal case of Kaja [1995] Imm AR 1 of a reasonable likelihood relates to the fear of persecution and whether that fear is well-founded It is accepted by all that the appellant in this case will not be persecuted in Colombo. The question is "would it be unduly harsh?" This is a very different question and we adopt the approach taken in Rasaratnam.' Whether this departure from the approach established by the higher UK courts in Sivakumaran [1998] 1 All ER 193 will be approved by them is open to considerable doubt.
42. Rasaratnam v Canada [1992] FC 706 (FC:CA). See also the view of Judge David Pearl in Manoharan (1706), Immigration Appeal Tribunal, 1 Jul. 1998: '. . . the standard of proof in our view is the ordinary civil standard of a balance of probabilities. This is the position taken in the Canadian case of Rasaratnam. The lower standard developed in the Tribunal case of Kaja [1995] Imm AR 1 of a reasonable likelihood relates to the fear of persecution and whether that fear is well-founded It is accepted by all that the appellant in this case will not be persecuted in Colombo. The question is "would it be unduly harsh?" This is a very different question and we adopt the approach taken in Rasaratnam.' Whether this departure from the approach established by the higher UK courts in Sivakumaran [1998] 1 All ER 193 will be approved by them is open to considerable doubt.
43. For example, in Germany: BVerwG (9th Senate), 10 May 1994, C 434/93 (Turkey, Kurd).
44. For example, BVerwG (9th Senate), 16 Feb. 1993, 9 C31/92.
45. Above notes 1, 9.
46. Macdonald, I. and Blake, N., Macdonald's Immigration Law and Practice, 4th ed., London, Butterworths, 1995, 388 . The IRB 1996 Civil War Guidelines p.28 (n.48) note that: 'The Trial Division has specifically addressed the issue of at what point in time IFA is to be considered. In Dubrovac v MCI (1995), 29 Imm LR (2d)55 (FCTD) where the claimant's home town had been surrounded by opposing Serbian forces the Court commented that the claimants "would not be required to go from their home town to the safe zone of Croatia, but . . . from wherever they were relanded upon being sent back".' This also appears to be the position adopted in the German jurisprudence: Henkel, J., 'Who is a refugee?: Refugees from civil war and other internal armed conflicts', in Care and Storey, (eds.), above note 12, 25; see also Belgium V B C(2 ch) 12 Nov. 1992, W703(Turkey).
47. Macdonald, I. and Blake, N., Macdonald's Immigration Law and Practice, 4th ed., London, Butterworths, 1995, 388 . The IRB 1996 Civil War Guidelines p.28 (n.48) note that: 'The Trial Division has specifically addressed the issue of at what point in time IFA is to be considered. In Dubrovac v MCI (1995), 29 Imm LR (2d)55 (FCTD) where the claimant's home town had been surrounded by opposing Serbian forces the Court commented that the claimants "would not be required to go from their home town to the safe zone of Croatia, but . . . from wherever they were relanded upon being sent back".' This also appears to be the position adopted in the German jurisprudence: Henkel, J., 'Who is a refugee?: Refugees from civil war and other internal armed conflicts', in Care and Storey, (eds.), above note 12, 25; see also Belgium V B C(2 ch) 12 Nov. 1992, W703(Turkey).
48. Macdonald, I. and Blake, N., Macdonald's Immigration Law and Practice, 4th ed., London, Butterworths, 1995, 388 . The IRB 1996 Civil War Guidelines p.28 (n.48) note that: 'The Trial Division has specifically addressed the issue of at what point in time IFA is to be considered. In Dubrovac v MCI (1995), 29 Imm LR (2d)55 (FCTD) where the claimant's home town had been surrounded by opposing Serbian forces the Court commented that the claimants "would not be required to go from their home town to the safe zone of Croatia, but . . . from wherever they were relanded upon being sent back".' This also appears to be the position adopted in the German jurisprudence: Henkel, J., 'Who is a refugee?: Refugees from civil war and other internal armed conflicts', in Care and Storey, (eds.), above note 12, 25; see also Belgium V B C(2 ch) 12 Nov. 1992, W703(Turkey).
49. Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379, 391(HC: Aust).
50. Sometimes attempts at internal flight can be perceived by potential persecutors as an expression in itself of disaffection requiring an oppressive response; see, for example, VG Karlsruhe (11th Division) 4 Dec. 1992, A 11 K 17566/91, cited in Carlier et al., above note 1, 123. A Karlsruhe Administrative Court granted the right of asylum to a Lebanese man who claimed to have become the target of persecution as a result of his flight from the army of Lahad in Southern Lebanon, which was seen as an expression of sympathy for the Syrian forces.
51. But cf. the somewhat wayward approach taken in one recent UK Immigration Appeal Tribunal determination, Sayandan (16312), 5 Mar. 1998, 13. The better view is that expressed in the full judgment of the Court of Appeal in Robinson v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1997] Imm AR 568.
52. But cf. the somewhat wayward approach taken in one recent UK Immigration Appeal Tribunal determination, Sayandan (16312), 5 Mar. 1998, 13. The better view is that expressed in the full judgment of the Court of Appeal in Robinson v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1997] Imm AR 568.
53. Ravichandran [1996] Imm AR 97.
54. de Moffarts, above note 1, cites Bruin (o.e. NAV 1995, 774).
55. For Austria and Denmark and Canada, see citations in Carlier et al, above note 1; for US jurisprudence, see Acosta 19 I & N Dec. 21; Matter of Fuentes 19 I & N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988); Matter of A, Interim Decision 3195, 7-9 (BIA 1992); Quintanilla-Tuas v INS, 783 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1986), Singh v Ilchert 801 F.Supp. 313, 321 (N.D.Cal.1992) Abdel-Masieh v INS 73 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 1996); Matter of A.E.M., Int. Dec. 3338 (BIA 1998). For Canadian, Australian and UK references see cases cited in the 1995 New Zealand decision Re: RS 523/92, above note 21, 28-46. The current leading case in the UK is Robinson [1997] Imm AR 568 (Court of Appeal). For a more detailed treatment of the pre-and post-Robinson jurisprudence see Storey, H., 'The "Internal Flight Alternative" (IFA) Test and the concept of Persecution' in Nicholson, F. & Twomey, P., eds., Current Issues of UK Asylum Law and Policy, Ashgate, 1998. For Netherlands case law, see Case Abstract IJRL/015 1 IJRL 388 (1989), Case Abstract IJRL/0016, ibid., 389, both decisions of the Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad (Judicial Division of the Council of State). For France, see Case Abstract IJRL/0101 4 IJRL 97 (1992), a decision of the Commission des Recours (Refugee Appeals Board). For Germany, see Case Abstract IJRL/0084, 3 IJRZ, 343 (1991), a decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court). The Canadian case of Thirunavukkarasu, above note 16, appears to be accepted as the leading case world-wide; cf. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, 2nd ed., 74-5. The EU Joint Position, above note 9, also adopts the criterion: 'it may be necessary . . . to ascertain whether the person concerned cannot find effective protection in another part of his own country, to which he may reasonably be expected to move'.
56. For Austria and Denmark and Canada, see citations in Carlier et al, above note 1; for US jurisprudence, see Acosta 19 I & N Dec. 21; Matter of Fuentes 19 I & N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988); Matter of A, Interim Decision 3195, 7-9 (BIA 1992); Quintanilla-Tuas v INS, 783 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1986), Singh v Ilchert 801 F.Supp. 313, 321 (N.D.Cal.1992) Abdel-Masieh v INS 73 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 1996); Matter of A.E.M., Int. Dec. 3338 (BIA 1998). For Canadian, Australian and UK references see cases cited in the 1995 New Zealand decision Re: RS 523/92, above note 21, 28-46. The current leading case in the UK is Robinson [1997] Imm AR 568 (Court of Appeal). For a more detailed treatment of the pre-and post-Robinson jurisprudence see Storey, H., 'The "Internal Flight Alternative" (IFA) Test and the concept of Persecution' in Nicholson, F. & Twomey, P., eds., Current Issues of UK Asylum Law and Policy, Ashgate, 1998. For Netherlands case law, see Case Abstract IJRL/015 1 IJRL 388 (1989), Case Abstract IJRL/0016, ibid., 389, both decisions of the Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad (Judicial Division of the Council of State). For France, see Case Abstract IJRL/0101 4 IJRL 97 (1992), a decision of the Commission des Recours (Refugee Appeals Board). For Germany, see Case Abstract IJRL/0084, 3 IJRZ, 343 (1991), a decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court). The Canadian case of Thirunavukkarasu, above note 16, appears to be accepted as the leading case world-wide; cf. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, 2nd ed., 74-5. The EU Joint Position, above note 9, also adopts the criterion: 'it may be necessary . . . to ascertain whether the person concerned cannot find effective protection in another part of his own country, to which he may reasonably be expected to move'.
57. For Austria and Denmark and Canada, see citations in Carlier et al, above note 1; for US jurisprudence, see Acosta 19 I & N Dec. 21; Matter of Fuentes 19 I & N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988); Matter of A, Interim Decision 3195, 7-9 (BIA 1992); Quintanilla-Tuas v INS, 783 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1986), Singh v Ilchert 801 F.Supp. 313, 321 (N.D.Cal.1992) Abdel-Masieh v INS 73 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 1996); Matter of A.E.M., Int. Dec. 3338 (BIA 1998). For Canadian, Australian and UK references see cases cited in the 1995 New Zealand decision Re: RS 523/92, above note 21, 28-46. The current leading case in the UK is Robinson [1997] Imm AR 568 (Court of Appeal). For a more detailed treatment of the pre-and post-Robinson jurisprudence see Storey, H., 'The "Internal Flight Alternative" (IFA) Test and the concept of Persecution' in Nicholson, F. & Twomey, P., eds., Current Issues of UK Asylum Law and Policy, Ashgate, 1998. For Netherlands case law, see Case Abstract IJRL/015 1 IJRL 388 (1989), Case Abstract IJRL/0016, ibid., 389, both decisions of the Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad (Judicial Division of the Council of State). For France, see Case Abstract IJRL/0101 4 IJRL 97 (1992), a decision of the Commission des Recours (Refugee Appeals Board). For Germany, see Case Abstract IJRL/0084, 3 IJRZ, 343 (1991), a decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court). The Canadian case of Thirunavukkarasu, above note 16, appears to be accepted as the leading case world-wide; cf. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, 2nd ed., 74-5. The EU Joint Position, above note 9, also adopts the criterion: 'it may be necessary . . . to ascertain whether the person concerned cannot find effective protection in another part of his own country, to which he may reasonably be expected to move'.
58. For Austria and Denmark and Canada, see citations in Carlier et al, above note 1; for US jurisprudence, see Acosta 19 I & N Dec. 21; Matter of Fuentes 19 I & N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988); Matter of A, Interim Decision 3195, 7-9 (BIA 1992); Quintanilla-Tuas v INS, 783 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1986), Singh v Ilchert 801 F.Supp. 313, 321 (N.D.Cal.1992) Abdel-Masieh v INS 73 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 1996); Matter of A.E.M., Int. Dec. 3338 (BIA 1998). For Canadian, Australian and UK references see cases cited in the 1995 New Zealand decision Re: RS 523/92, above note 21, 28-46. The current leading case in the UK is Robinson [1997] Imm AR 568 (Court of Appeal). For a more detailed treatment of the pre-and post-Robinson jurisprudence see Storey, H., 'The "Internal Flight Alternative" (IFA) Test and the concept of Persecution' in Nicholson, F. & Twomey, P., eds., Current Issues of UK Asylum Law and Policy, Ashgate, 1998. For Netherlands case law, see Case Abstract IJRL/015 1 IJRL 388 (1989), Case Abstract IJRL/0016, ibid., 389, both decisions of the Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad (Judicial Division of the Council of State). For France, see Case Abstract IJRL/0101 4 IJRL 97 (1992), a decision of the Commission des Recours (Refugee Appeals Board). For Germany, see Case Abstract IJRL/0084, 3 IJRZ, 343 (1991), a decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court). The Canadian case of Thirunavukkarasu, above note 16, appears to be accepted as the leading case world-wide; cf. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, 2nd ed., 74-5. The EU Joint Position, above note 9, also adopts the criterion: 'it may be necessary . . . to ascertain whether the person concerned cannot find effective protection in another part of his own country, to which he may reasonably be expected to move'.
59. For Austria and Denmark and Canada, see citations in Carlier et al, above note 1; for US jurisprudence, see Acosta 19 I & N Dec. 21; Matter of Fuentes 19 I & N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988); Matter of A, Interim Decision 3195, 7-9 (BIA 1992); Quintanilla-Tuas v INS, 783 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1986), Singh v Ilchert 801 F.Supp. 313, 321 (N.D.Cal.1992) Abdel-Masieh v INS 73 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 1996); Matter of A.E.M., Int. Dec. 3338 (BIA 1998). For Canadian, Australian and UK references see cases cited in the 1995 New Zealand decision Re: RS 523/92, above note 21, 28-46. The current leading case in the UK is Robinson [1997] Imm AR 568 (Court of Appeal). For a more detailed treatment of the pre-and post-Robinson jurisprudence see Storey, H., 'The "Internal Flight Alternative" (IFA) Test and the concept of Persecution' in Nicholson, F. & Twomey, P., eds., Current Issues of UK Asylum Law and Policy, Ashgate, 1998. For Netherlands case law, see Case Abstract IJRL/015 1 IJRL 388 (1989), Case Abstract IJRL/0016, ibid., 389, both decisions of the Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad (Judicial Division of the Council of State). For France, see Case Abstract IJRL/0101 4 IJRL 97 (1992), a decision of the Commission des Recours (Refugee Appeals Board). For Germany, see Case Abstract IJRL/0084, 3 IJRZ, 343 (1991), a decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court). The Canadian case of Thirunavukkarasu, above note 16, appears to be accepted as the leading case world-wide; cf. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, 2nd ed., 74-5. The EU Joint Position, above note 9, also adopts the criterion: 'it may be necessary . . . to ascertain whether the person concerned cannot find effective protection in another part of his own country, to which he may reasonably be expected to move'.
60. For Austria and Denmark and Canada, see citations in Carlier et al, above note 1; for US jurisprudence, see Acosta 19 I & N Dec. 21; Matter of Fuentes 19 I & N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988); Matter of A, Interim Decision 3195, 7-9 (BIA 1992); Quintanilla-Tuas v INS, 783 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1986), Singh v Ilchert 801 F.Supp. 313, 321 (N.D.Cal.1992) Abdel-Masieh v INS 73 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 1996); Matter of A.E.M., Int. Dec. 3338 (BIA 1998). For Canadian, Australian and UK references see cases cited in the 1995 New Zealand decision Re: RS 523/92, above note 21, 28-46. The current leading case in the UK is Robinson [1997] Imm AR 568 (Court of Appeal). For a more detailed treatment of the pre-and post-Robinson jurisprudence see Storey, H., 'The "Internal Flight Alternative" (IFA) Test and the concept of Persecution' in Nicholson, F. & Twomey, P., eds., Current Issues of UK Asylum Law and Policy, Ashgate, 1998. For Netherlands case law, see Case Abstract IJRL/015 1 IJRL 388 (1989), Case Abstract IJRL/0016, ibid., 389, both decisions of the Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad (Judicial Division of the Council of State). For France, see Case Abstract IJRL/0101 4 IJRL 97 (1992), a decision of the Commission des Recours (Refugee Appeals Board). For Germany, see Case Abstract IJRL/0084, 3 IJRZ, 343 (1991), a decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court). The Canadian case of Thirunavukkarasu, above note 16, appears to be accepted as the leading case world-wide; cf. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, 2nd ed., 74-5. The EU Joint Position, above note 9, also adopts the criterion: 'it may be necessary . . . to ascertain whether the person concerned cannot find effective protection in another part of his own country, to which he may reasonably be expected to move'.
61. For Austria and Denmark and Canada, see citations in Carlier et al, above note 1; for US jurisprudence, see Acosta 19 I & N Dec. 21; Matter of Fuentes 19 I & N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988); Matter of A, Interim Decision 3195, 7-9 (BIA 1992); Quintanilla-Tuas v INS, 783 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1986), Singh v Ilchert 801 F.Supp. 313, 321 (N.D.Cal.1992) Abdel-Masieh v INS 73 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 1996); Matter of A.E.M., Int. Dec. 3338 (BIA 1998). For Canadian, Australian and UK references see cases cited in the 1995 New Zealand decision Re: RS 523/92, above note 21, 28-46. The current leading case in the UK is Robinson [1997] Imm AR 568 (Court of Appeal). For a more detailed treatment of the pre-and post-Robinson jurisprudence see Storey, H., 'The "Internal Flight Alternative" (IFA) Test and the concept of Persecution' in Nicholson, F. & Twomey, P., eds., Current Issues of UK Asylum Law and Policy, Ashgate, 1998. For Netherlands case law, see Case Abstract IJRL/015 1 IJRL 388 (1989), Case Abstract IJRL/0016, ibid., 389, both decisions of the Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad (Judicial Division of the Council of State). For France, see Case Abstract IJRL/0101 4 IJRL 97 (1992), a decision of the Commission des Recours (Refugee Appeals Board). For Germany, see Case Abstract IJRL/0084, 3 IJRZ, 343 (1991), a decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court). The Canadian case of Thirunavukkarasu, above note 16, appears to be accepted as the leading case world-wide; cf. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, 2nd ed., 74-5. The EU Joint Position, above note 9, also adopts the criterion: 'it may be necessary . . . to ascertain whether the person concerned cannot find effective protection in another part of his own country, to which he may reasonably be expected to move'.
62. For Austria and Denmark and Canada, see citations in Carlier et al, above note 1; for US jurisprudence, see Acosta 19 I & N Dec. 21; Matter of Fuentes 19 I & N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988); Matter of A, Interim Decision 3195, 7-9 (BIA 1992); Quintanilla-Tuas v INS, 783 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1986), Singh v Ilchert 801 F.Supp. 313, 321 (N.D.Cal.1992) Abdel-Masieh v INS 73 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 1996); Matter of A.E.M., Int. Dec. 3338 (BIA 1998). For Canadian, Australian and UK references see cases cited in the 1995 New Zealand decision Re: RS 523/92, above note 21, 28-46. The current leading case in the UK is Robinson [1997] Imm AR 568 (Court of Appeal). For a more detailed treatment of the pre-and post-Robinson jurisprudence see Storey, H., 'The "Internal Flight Alternative" (IFA) Test and the concept of Persecution' in Nicholson, F. & Twomey, P., eds., Current Issues of UK Asylum Law and Policy, Ashgate, 1998. For Netherlands case law, see Case Abstract IJRL/015 1 IJRL 388 (1989), Case Abstract IJRL/0016, ibid., 389, both decisions of the Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad (Judicial Division of the Council of State). For France, see Case Abstract IJRL/0101 4 IJRL 97 (1992), a decision of the Commission des Recours (Refugee Appeals Board). For Germany, see Case Abstract IJRL/0084, 3 IJRZ, 343 (1991), a decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court). The Canadian case of Thirunavukkarasu, above note 16, appears to be accepted as the leading case world-wide; cf. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, 2nd ed., 74-5. The EU Joint Position, above note 9, also adopts the criterion: 'it may be necessary . . . to ascertain whether the person concerned cannot find effective protection in another part of his own country, to which he may reasonably be expected to move'.
63. See Case Abstract IJRL/0081, 3 IJRL 338 (1991) and Case Abstract IJRL/0258, 8 IJRL 207(1996).
64. The tendency of some of the decisions of the New Zealand RSAA to incline too far this way was criticised by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand in the Butler case (CA 181/97, 13 Oct. 1997): 'Rather than being seen as free standing (as more recent decisions of the Authority appear to suggest), the reasonableness test must be related to the primary obligation of the country of nationality to protect the claimant . . . The reasonableness element must be tied back to the definition of "refugee" set out in the Convention and to the Convention's purposes of original protection or surrogate protection for the avoidance of persecution . . .' In Re RS Refugee Appeal No. 523/93, 17 Mar. 1995, New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority, A.R. Mackay, Chair, preferred to describe this prong (which it listed as a second limb or prong) in the form of the question: 'Is it reasonable, in all the circumstances, to expect the individual to relocate?' This adds lucidity to the short-hand use of the word 'safety' preferred here; but it fails to make clear that reasonableness is adjectival of the issue of avoidance of persecution achievable by relocation to an alternative place of safety.
65. IRB 1994 Commentary, 13.
66. See, for example, Staughton LR in Ikhlaq v Iqklaq, unreported, 16 Apr. 1997. For examples from German case law, see Kälin, W., 'Well-founded fear of persecution: A European perspective', in Bhabha, J. & Coll., G., (eds.), Asylum Law and Practice in Europe and North America, (1992), 32.
67. Schleswig-Holstein Superior Administrative Court (OVG) 4 L 18/95 (5 A 364/94): 'It comes down to whether or not a reasonable and level-headed person in the situation the asylum-seeker is in has reason to fear persecution . . .'
68. Ahmed v MEI (FCA, No. A-89-92) 14 Jul. 1993.
69. Robinson v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1997] Imm AR 568, 578.
70. Thirunavukkarasu, above note 16, 8.
71. Ibid.
72. Per Black CJ, Randhawa (1994) 124 ALR 265, para. 14. Thirunavukkarasu, above, note 16, 8. UK Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Dupovac (11846) (considering Bosnia in 1992 and 1993); and Ikhlaq (13679), 15 Jul. 1996.
73. Per Black CJ, Randhawa (1994) 124 ALR 265, para. 14. Thirunavukkarasu, above, note 16, 8. UK Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Dupovac (11846) (considering Bosnia in 1992 and 1993); and Ikhlaq (13679), 15 Jul. 1996.
74. Linden JA, in Thirunavukkarasu, above note 16.
75. It is submitted that even in cases where there may be strong grounds for viewing one area or zone as safe for a particular group (for example, Kurds in Istanbul, Turkey; Ahmadis in Rabwa, Pakistan; Tamils in Colombo, Sri Lanka), it would be erroneous to ignore the fact that in any event such places may not be safe for particular individuals or subgroups.
76. Thirunavukkarasu, above note 16, 8; also Belgium v BC (2 ch) 12 Nov. 1992, W703 (Turkey).
77. Thirunavukkarasu, above note 16, 8; also Belgium v BC (2 ch) 12 Nov. 1992, W703 (Turkey).
78. See the US Immigration and Naturalisation Service Gender Guidelines: Considerations for Asylum Officers Adjudicating Asylum Claims from Women, 26 May 1996: 7 IJRL 700, 717-8 (1995); UNHCR, Sexual Violence against Refugees: Guidelines on Prevention and Response, 1995, para 1.6 (for extracts see 7 IJRL 720, 729 (1995); BVerwG C 45.92: Case Abstract IJRL/0258, 8 IJRL 207 (1996).
79. See Carlier et al (eds), above note 1, 123; Henkel, above note 31.
80. Re RS, Refugee Appeal No 135/92 (18 Jun. 1993) 27.
81. Megag, Sahra Abdilan v. MEI (FCTD, Nola-822-92), Rothstein J, 24 Nov. 1993.
82. Thirunawkkarasu, above note 16, 8; to similar effect, see R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Yurekli [1990] Imm AR 334.
83. See Carlier et al., above note 1, for citations to relevant German jurisprudence.
84. Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 24 Mar. 1995, BVerwG 9 B 747.94, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 1995, 868; Raad van State (Netherlands), 21 Jun. 1979 RV, 1979, 8; 7 Feb. 1980, RV 1980, 3; 13 Aug. 1981, RV, 1981 4; de Morfarts, above note 1.
85. Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 24 Mar. 1995, BVerwG 9 B 747.94, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 1995, 868; Raad van State (Netherlands), 21 Jun. 1979 RV, 1979, 8; 7 Feb. 1980, RV 1980, 3; 13 Aug. 1981, RV, 1981 4; de Morfarts, above note 1.
86. See Carlier et al., above note 1, for citations to Swiss jurisprudence. United Kingdom dealing with economic considerations are broadly in agreement; see ex parte Turekli [1990] Imm AR 334; ex parte Vigna [1993] Imm AR 93.
87. BVerwG C.45.92, above note 51.
88. Carlier et al. (eds), above note 1, 350.
89. Above note 59.
90. Thirunavukkarasü, above note 16, 7-8. On the analysis of conflicting country reports see the determination by Judge Pearl in Chinder Singh & Anr. (90055), Immigration Appeal Tribunal, 7 Jul. 1998.
91. Thirunavukkarasü, above note 16, 7-8. On the analysis of conflicting country reports see the determination by Judge Pearl in Chinder Singh & Anr. (90055), Immigration Appeal Tribunal, 7 Jul. 1998.
92. Re RS Refugee Appeal No. 523/93, above note 39, 86.
93. Montiero-Figuerda (12785), United Kingdom Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
94. 1995 UNHCR Position Statement, 31.
95. Henkel, above note 31.
96. 1994 IRB Commentary, note 18.
97. Ibid., 7.
98. See Hathaway, Refugee Status, 134; and see New Zealand Re RS Refugee Appeal No. 135/92 (18 June 1993) 26, cited in Re RS 523/92, above note 21, 45.
99. See Hathaway, Refugee Status, 134; and see New Zealand Re RS Refugee Appeal No. 135/92 (18 June 1993) 26, cited in Re RS 523/92, above note 21, 45.
100. UNHCR Handbook, paras. 98-100.
101. Raad van State (Netherlands) 6 December 1994 (RO2.92.44.10) cited by Bruin, R., 'Bescherming door de overheld; over het binnenlends vluchtalernatiel', NAV, 1995 763: de Moffarts, above note 1
102. See IRB 1994 Commentary, 4, 12.
103. de Moffarts, above note 1.
104. 1995 UNHCR Position Statement, 32. While it is beyond the scope of this article to explore further the concept of protection, this writer notes the approach adopted in Debrah (17606), a recent United Kingdom Immigration Appeal Tribunal determination (1 Jul. 1998), in which the Chair, Judge David Pearl, argues that the underlying question has to be not whether protection is effective or meaningful, so much as 'Is there in place in the country a sufficiency of protection . . . We think that it is impossible to create a system of international protection based on effectiveness. In contrast we believe that it is indeed the responsibility of the decision-maker to ascertain whether the systems of domestic protection which are in place are sufficient from the perspective of international law'. The value of this decision may prove to be not so much its challenge to use of the criterion of effectiveness, as its concern that the test be linked to international law norms.
105. See Rasaratnam, above note 27.
106. Randhawa, above note 47, 5; the United Kingdom case, R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Robinson CO/1495/96 (Popplewell J); FC3 96/6129/D(CA), 11 Oct. 1996, reflects the same approach, although it lacks any clear framework of analysis.
107. Randhawa, above note 47, 5; the United Kingdom case, R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Robinson CO/1495/96 (Popplewell J); FC3 96/6129/D(CA), 11 Oct. 1996, reflects the same approach, although it lacks any clear framework of analysis.
108. Zalzazi v MEI [1991] 3 FC 605(CA).
109. Rasaratnam, above note 27, 711.
110. CRA, 6 Dec. 1994, 2nd ch., N 175 287, cited in Carlier et al, above note 1, 132.
111. Megag v MEI (FCTD) A 822-92. EU Joint Position Statement: 'it may be necessary . . . to ascertain whether the person concerned cannot find effective protection in another part of his own country, to which he may reasonably be expected to move'.
112. Henkel in 'Who is a refugee' in Care and Storey, above note 31, 24, notes that this point has been given distinct treatment in Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 13 May 1993: BVerwG 9 C4.5992, Neue Zeischrift für Verwaltungsrecht 1994, 210.
113. Thirunavukkarasu, above note 16, 7-8.
114. Including, it must be said, Thirunavukkarasu itself in isolated passages.
115. See, for example, the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Adan & Ors v Secretary of Statt for the Home Department [1997] Imm AR 251. The subsequent judgment of the House of Lords in this case strongly rejected the Court of Appeal's analysis of protection: see Adan (HL) [1998] Imm AR 338.
116. Re RS Refugee Appeal No. 523/92, above note 21, 29.
117. Ibid., 32.
118. Ibid.
119. Above note 20.
120. Butler, above note 20. See to similar effect the House of Lords judgment in Adan [1998] Imm AR 338.
121. Rasaratnam v Canada [1992] FC 706, 709-11 (FC:CA).
122. IRB 1996 Civil War Guidelines, 13.
123. Hathaway, Refugee Status, 134, 135ff.
124. Above note 28. Cf. Matter of Kasinga, Int. Dec. 3270 (BIA 1996); 9 IJRL Special Issue 1997, 213.
125. Above note 28. Cf. Matter of Kasinga, Int. Dec. 3270 (BIA 1996); 9 IJRL Special Issue 1997, 213.
126. UNHCR, 'An Overview of Protection Issues in Western Europe: Legislative Trends and Positions taken by UNHCR,' Aug. 1995, 24; emphasis added.
127. de Moffarts, above note 1, 131-2.
128. Robinson [1997] Imm AR 568, para. 29.
129. Ibid., para. 18.
130. For a concise statement of the latter position, see Carlier et al, above note 1, 699, 701-5, 707-12.
131. UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984, UN doc. A/Res/39/4; Brownlie, I., (ed.), Basic Documents on Human Rights, 3rd ed., 1994, 38.
132. UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984, UN doc. A/Res/39/4; Brownlie, I., (ed.), Basic Documents on Human Rights, 3rd ed., 1994, 38.
133. Ismail Alan v Switzerland, Communication No.21/1995 (CAT/C/16/D/211995); 8 IJRL 440 (1996).
134. European Commission on Human Rights [ECHR], Application 23551, Report of 10 May 1994; no.23551.
135. Vilvarajah v. United Kingdom, 20 Oct. 1991, Ser. A, vol. 215, para. 109.
136. Henkel, above note 31, 32-3.
137. Judgment of 15 Nov. 1996: 9 IJRL 86 (1997).
138. Ibid., paras. 100, 102, 103, 104, 107.
139. (1994) 23 Imm LR (2d) 300, 301-2 (FCA).
140. Spijkerboer, above note 4.