New Asylum Aid report examines how, in decision making at all levels, internal protection is applied and its safety and reasonableness assessed
In a report released earlier this week, Asylum Aid says that UK asylum decision makers regularly apply the Internal Protection Alternative (IPA) concept in a way which could be exposing vulnerable people to increased risk.
The report 'Even if… The use of the Internal Protection Alternative in asylum decisions in the UK' is available here.
Asylum Aid notes that IPA is more usually called 'internal relocation' or 'internal flight alternative' in the UK, and is the idea that an asylum seeker could reasonably be expected to relocate to a place of safety and protection within their home country rather than seek protection in the UK.
The report examines how, in decision making at all levels, internal protection is applied and its safety and reasonableness assessed.
According to the report, IPA is regularly used by UK decision makers as a fall-back option where the application has been deemed not to be credible in the first place, rather than as a protection alternative for someone with a well-founded fear of persecution in their home region.
"IPA is applied when an applicant is not deemed to be at risk, but even if they were, they could relocate. This logic ignores the fact that if they were at risk in one area, that risk may also apply elsewhere in the country, and this risk may not be adequately assessed," an Asylum Aid press release states.
The report also says that IPA is repeatedly 'tacked on' in refusal letters, but not raised in asylum interviews, thus not giving the applicant the opportunity of explaining why relocation to the proposed area may not be possible.
In concluding, Asylum Aid say that the Home Office's asylum policy instructions and leading cases focus on the asylum seeker's capacity to make a life in the proposed region of relocation, whereas the preoccupation of asylum seekers interviewed was with safety.
"What asylum seekers are saying is that the question should be one of internal protection. The ultimate question is 'will I be safe?" the report states.