Internal relocation findings unlawful in decision refusing South African international protection

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – substantive hearing – South African national challenging the decision challenging the decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal refusing her international protection – claimed that she discovered that her partner was involved in organising prostitution and that she was falsely imprisoned and raped - threatened that her daughters would be kidnapped and forced into prostitution – unknown location of children – refused asylum and subsidiary protection – appeals refused - Alleged non-compliance with s. 32 of the 2015 Act – internal relocation - finding on internal relocation involved a decision both that there was no risk in Johannesburg and that it would be reasonable to relocate there - incorrectly pleaded – provision revoked – differences in the provisions – statutory interpretation - four major elements to the question of whether it is reasonable for an applicant to relocate within his or her country of origin – academic commentary - inadequate consideration of her personal circumstances and particularly in terms of whether it was reasonable to relocate - a failure to correctly apply the reasonableness test – statement that the mother could avoid telling the children where she was does not appear to comply with the requirement that the arrangement be reasonable - tribunal failed to make a clear assessment of what the precise family arrangement was going to be in the country of origin and whether that arrangement was one to which she could reasonably be expected to submit - alleged irrationality in deciding that the applicant can avail of internal relocation – whether finding severable from the decision – judicial review granted.