Ideally, when a protection decision-maker is finding that state protection is available to an applicant, it should either refer to some source which confirms the existence of a functioning police force or other form of protection, or to the presumption that functioning states protect their citizens. It may, however, suffice if its conclusion is preceded by a reference to the definition of protection in reg. 2 of the EC (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (or subsequent similar legislation, such as the EU (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013).

It is insufficient for an applicant challenging a protection decision in judicial review proceedings to say that the requirements of reg. 5(1)(a) of the Regulations of 2006 (or cognate provisions of other legislation) have been breached because there has not been any assessment of relevant facts as they related to the country of origin at the time the decision was made. Significantly detailed complaints as to what facts were not considered, as well as submissions as to the effect of the alleged omission, would be required to ground such a complaint. Similar considerations apply if it is asserted baldly that evidence should as country of origin information has not been considered, or that there has been a failure to consider an applicant’s personal circumstances when making a finding that internal relocation would be available to him.