F.H. (Ap) v Secretary Of State For The Home Department

[1] The applicant, a citizen of Sudan , entered the United Kingdom clandestinely on 4 May 2004 and applied for asylum on that date. He was accompanied by one dependant. By letter dated 4 October 2004 the respondent refused the applicant asylum and concluded that the applicant's removal would not be contrary to the United Kingdom 's obligations under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).

[4] The applicant sought and was granted permission to appeal against the adjudicator's decision to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal restricted to the second ground of appeal which was in the following terms:

"That even if the Adjudicator were correct in considering the possibility of 'Internal Relocation', he has, nevertheless, erred in law by failing to apply consideration of the proper test in law that of "Undue Harshness".

It is submitted that there is in law a strong presumption against Internal Relocation where the persecutor is the state, that the Adjudicator has overlooked the fears expressed by the Appellant, both in his written and oral evidence and, in so doing, has failed to properly evaluate the risks of discrimination/ persecution in Khartoum. Nor did the Adjudicator follow the various tests outlined in Sayandan in assessing whether it would be 'Unduly Harsh' to return the appellant to Khartoum ."

[5] The applicant sought leave from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to appeal to the Court of Session against the decision of the Tribunal. The grounds may be summarised as follows: