UK - Upper Tribunal, 11 November 2010, AW (sufficiency of protection) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 31(IAC)

Facts:

The applicant was a police officer from North Warizistan in Pakistan. He came to the UK and claimed asylum in 2008. The basis of his claim was that he faced persecution by the MQM, which is a political party that held cabinet posts, but had been accused of committing human rights violations against political opponents in the past. The applicant had arrested MQM members in the course of his duties. Subsequently he had been targeted and his wife and brother had both been murdered by the MQM; his brother being killed two days after trying to stop MQM members writing graffiti on the wall of the family house. The suspects were arrested but released on bail after 2 days, which the applicant subsequently tried to have revoked. MQM members approached him to see if a settlement could be made. He refused. He left the country when he heard that a complaint had been made that he kidnapped two MQM officials and an ‘FIR’ (First Information Report) had been issued against him. The First Tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal following country guidance which showed that, in general, there was sufficient protection against non-state actors in Pakistan. The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

Decision & reasoning:

The Upper Tribunal found that Art 7 of the Qualification Directive mirrors the principles in the House of Lords decision in Horvath (see separate summary).  However, it only provides the starting point for an assessment of whether the applicant can access state protection in the home country. 

A judge must also look, even though there is a general sufficiency of protection in a country, to the individual circumstances of the applicant.  The judge should consider whether an applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution or establish a claim under Art 15(b) of the Qualification Directive or a claim under Art 3 ECHR on the basis that the authorities know or ought to know of circumstances particular to his case giving rise to his fear, but are unlikely to provide the additional protection his particular circumstances reasonably require.  The failure to make this evaluation and a number of further errors resulted in fundamental flaws in the First Tier Tribunal’s decision.

In reconsidering the appeal, the Upper Tribunal applied recital 27 and Art 4 of the Qualification Directive to the facts of the case.  It was satisfied that the applicant had suffered past persecution because the MQM had targeted him and his family.  There was no good reason to consider that this did not put the applicant at future risk and the Pakistani authorities would be unlikely to provide him with the particular protection he required.  There was no internal protection alternative available to the appellant because of the ‘FIR’ that had been issued.

Outcome:

The appeal was allowed.