The applicants challenged the Tribunal’s decision on the grounds that it failed to give proper consideration to their asylum claims, that the Tribunal’s finding regarding State protection was wrong in law, that the Tribunal had failed to consider the applicant’s fear of forced marriage, and that the Tribunal erred in improperly considering internal relocation.
The Court granted leave, finding that the true test regarding State protection is whether the country concerned provides protection in practical terms and whether the law coupled with enforcement affords reasonable protection. The Court also held that it is arguable that a decision on internal flight must comply with the UNHCR guidelines on the matter, and that a decision maker must consider whether it would be reaonable in the circumstances for a claimant to relocate in the manner suggested.
