In Matter of M-Z-M-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2012), the Board of Immigration Appeals clarified an often misunderstood standard in asylum law: when internal relocation within a home country can defeat an asylum claim.
The case involved a Sri Lankan asylum applicant who had already established past persecution. That should have triggered a presumption of future persecution—unless the government could show that the applicant could safely and reasonably relocate to another part of the country.
This standard comes from 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), but it’s long confused judges and attorneys alike. It requires both (1) that relocation would avoid future persecution, and (2) that it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to relocate.
In M-Z-M-R-, the Board made two critical clarifications:
Relocation must eliminate a well-founded fear – The area must be substantially safer than the region from which the person fled. It’s not enough to argue a person might “probably” be safer elsewhere. There must be a specific showing that the fear of persecution no longer exists in that location.
Relocation must be reasonable – Even if there is a safe area, it might not be reasonable to expect the person to move there. For example, moving to a rural or inaccessible region without family, support, or means to survive may not be reasonable, especially for people already traumatized or marginalized.
The Board remanded the case because the Immigration Judge had failed to make necessary findings about whether the proposed relocation site was genuinely safe and whether it was reasonably accessible under the applicant’s circumstances.
Why This Decision Matters
M-Z-M-R- is an important reminder that internal relocation is not a free pass for denying asylum. The burden is on DHS to prove both safety and reasonableness by a preponderance of the evidence. Too often, immigration judges conflate the two or assume that any other city in the country will do.
It also provides useful advocacy tools for asylum seekers, especially those from countries with widespread or government-condoned violence. If an applicant has suffered past persecution, DHS must do more than suggest they could “just move somewhere else.” They must prove it’s a real option—and that it’s fair to expect the applicant to take it.
If you or your client is facing arguments about internal relocation, M-Z-M-R- is essential reading.