The High Court has refused Mr O’s application for relief challenging an International Protection Appeals Tribunal decision on internal settlement in his protection appeal.
Mr O had been refused refugee and subsidiary protection declarations. His sole complaint in the judicial review was that the Tribunal’s appeal decision did not explain whether it relied on the term “settle” in section 32(1)(b) of the International Protection Act 2015 or “stay” in Article 8(1) of the EU Qualification Directive, or whether the difference had any consequences.
Delivering judgment on 19 December 2019, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the Tribunal’s task was to comply with the law, not interpret it. He considered mistaken the argument that the use of “settle” in the 2015 Act made it incompatible with the Directive, which uses “stay”. The judgment cited the Directive’s provision allowing member states to adopt more favourable standards and said the duty of consistent interpretation required the terms to be read consistently.
The court found nothing in the Tribunal’s decision to suggest that section 32 had been misinterpreted or misapplied. It noted that the decision referred to Mr O’s observations about internal settlement and that his family had safely settled there, while recognizing that a wider family might be safe in a place where an individual family member might not be. The Tribunal had also considered available country of origin information.
The court concluded that there was no flaw in the decision on this issue and refused the reliefs sought. The judgment does not identify the place discussed or specify further consequences for Mr O’s protection claims.