UK - Upper Tribunal, 20 June 2011, MT (Ahmadi - HJ (Iran)) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 00277 (IAC)
| Country of Decision: | United Kingdom |
| Country of applicant: | Pakistan |
| Court name: | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Date of decision: | 20-06-2011 |
| Citation: | [2011] UKUT 00277 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Persecution (acts of)
Description
"Human rights abuses or other serious harm, often, but not always, with a systematic or repetitive element. Per Article 9 of the Qualification Directive, acts of persecution for the purposes of refugee status must: (a) be acts sufficiently serious by their nature or repetition as to constitute a severe violation of basic human rights, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of the ECHR; or (b) be an accumulation of various measures, including violations of human rights which is sufficiently severe as to affect an individual in a similar manner as mentioned in (a). This may, inter alia, take the form of: acts of physical or mental violence, including acts of sexual violence; legal, administrative, police and/or judicial measures which are in themselves discriminatory or which are implemented in a discriminatory manner; prosecution or punishment, which is disproportionate or discriminatory; denial of judicial redress resulting in a disproportionate or discriminatory punishment; prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes or acts falling under the exclusion clauses in Article 12(2). " |
|
Persecution Grounds/Reasons
Description
Per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention, one element of the refugee definition is that the persecution feared is “for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion“. Member States must take a number of elements into account when assessing the reasons for persecution as per Article 10 of the Qualification Directive. |
|
Religion
Description
One of the grounds of persecution specified in the refugee definition under Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention. According to the Qualification Directive, the concept of religion includes in particular the holding of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, the participation in, or abstention from, formal worship in private or in public, either alone or in community with others, other religious acts or expressions of view, or forms of personal or communal conduct based on or mandated by any religious belief. |
Headnote:
The guidance in HJ (Iran) (see separate summary in this database) should be applied, by analogy, in cases where the applicant feared persecution on account of their religion. Consequently, the Tribunal had to consider the reason why an Ahmadi applicant for asylum had modified his behaviour by preaching only to people who would not put him at risk of persecution.
Facts:
The applicant was a devout Ahmadi from Pakistan. Trying to convert people to his religion was a criminal offence. The Tribunal accepted part of his account; in particular that he had written three books on his faith. The First Tier Tribunal held that he preached his faith, but only in private to friends and family. He had also preached openly when he was abroad. It considered the current country guidance and found that “the risk is well below that necessary to engage international protection” and dismissed the appeal. The applicant appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
Decision & reasoning:
It held that the first question was to decide whether the applicant was a devout Ahmadi. As this had been accepted, the second question was to ask whether he would be persecuted if he preached openly. The Tribunal found that he would be persecuted, referring to the current country guidance. The third question to ask was what he would be do on return. The Tribunal held that he would continue to preach to people who were “not dangerous” because of the fear of persecution that he had of preaching openly. It continued to hold that there was no prospect of him relocating to Rebwah because, he would still be at risk there if he preached to “dangerous persons”. It allowed the appeal.
Outcome:
Appeal allowed.
Observations/comments:
HJ (Iran) and RT (Zimbabwe) are both separately summarised.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| UK - Supreme Court, 7 July 2010, HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 |
| UK - Court of Appeal, 18 November 2010, RT (Zimbabwe) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1285 |
| UK - Court of Appeal, 14 July 2003, B (R on the application of) v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 |
| UK - AB and DM (DRC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, CG [2005] UKIAT 00118 |
| UK - IA (Pakistan) CG [2007] UKAIT 00088 |
| UK - ID & Ors v The Home Office [2005] EWCA Civ 38 |
| UK - Nadarajah & Amirthanathan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1768 |
| UK - Patterson v London Borough of Greenwich [1994] 26 HLR 159 |
| UK - R (Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 36; [2003] 2 All ER 905 |
| UK - Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014 |
Follower Cases:
| Follower Cases |
| WA (Pakistan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2019 |
Other sources:
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("Istanbul Protocol"), 2004, HR/P/PT/8/Rev.1
Craig Administrative Law 5th Ed. (2003) ch 13.