II.
SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS
A.
Part of the holistic assessment of refugee status
6. The 1951 Convention does not require or even suggest that the fear of being persecuted
need always extend to the whole territory of the refugee’s country of origin.4 The concept of
an internal flight or relocation alternative therefore refers to a specific area of the country
where there is no risk of a well-founded fear of persecution and where, given the particular
circumstances of the case, the individual could reasonably be expected to establish
him/herself and live a normal life.5 Consequently, if internal flight or relocation is to be
considered in the context of refugee status determination, a particular area must be identified
and the claimant provided with an adequate opportunity to respond.
7. In the context of the holistic assessment of a claim to refugee status, in which a wellfounded fear of persecution for a Convention reason has been established in some localised
part of the country of origin, the assessment of whether or not there is a relocation possibility
requires two main sets of analyses, undertaken on the basis of answers to the following sets
of questions:
I.
The Relevance Analysis
a) Is the area of relocation practically, safely, and legally accessible to the
individual? If any of these conditions is not met, consideration of an
alternative location within the country would not be relevant.
b) Is the agent of persecution the State? National authorities are presumed to
act throughout the country. If they are the feared persecutors, there is a
presumption in principle that an internal flight or relocation alternative is not
available.
c) Is the agent of persecution a non-State agent? Where there is a risk that the
non-State actor will persecute the claimant in the proposed area, then the
area will not be an internal flight or relocation alternative. This finding will
depend on a determination of whether the persecutor is likely to pursue the
claimant to the area and whether State protection from the harm feared is
available there.
d) Would the claimant be exposed to a risk of being persecuted or other serious
harm upon relocation? This would include the original or any new form of
persecution or other serious harm in the area of relocation.
II.
The Reasonableness Analysis
a) Can the claimant, in the context of the country concerned, lead a relatively
normal life without facing undue hardship? If not, it would not be reasonable
to expect the person to move there.
Scope of assessment
8. The determination of whether the proposed internal flight or relocation area is an
appropriate alternative in the particular case requires an assessment over time, taking into
account not only the circumstances that gave rise to the persecution feared, and that
prompted flight from the original area, but also whether the proposed area provides a
meaningful alternative in the future. The forward-looking assessment is all the more important
since, although rejection of status does not automatically determine the course of action to be
followed, forcible return may be a consequence.
B.
The relevance analysis
9. The questions outlined in paragraph 7 can be analysed further as follows:
4
See UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (1979, Geneva,
re-edited 1992), (hereinafter “UNHCR Handbook”), para. 91.
5
For issues concerning the burden of proof in establishing these issues see section III.A below.
3