The High Court has refused H’s application for judicial review of a decision by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) rejecting his appeal for international protection.
H, a Pakistani national and practising Shia Muslim, said he feared threats or physical harm in Pakistan because of his religion and would not be able to practise it freely. The judgment says he was advised by letter on 17 May 2015 that a recommendation had been made against granting him refugee or subsidiary protection status. He appealed, but IPAT informed him by letter dated 3 October 2018 that his appeal had failed.
H challenged the tribunal’s decision on three broad grounds. The High Court declined to consider two: one concerning his ability to visit family in a named place in Pakistan, and another concerning the legal basis for the tribunal’s approach to internal relocation. Mr Justice Max Barrett said neither point appeared in the statement of grounds or had been the subject of leave.
The court considered the remaining ground, which challenged IPAT’s assessment of conditions for Shia Muslims and the possibility of relocation to a named city. H argued that the tribunal had irrationally preferred certain country information, failed to assess relevant matters concerning relocation for him and his family, and wrongly concluded that there was no risk from state actors and that effective state protection was available against non-state actors.
Justice Barrett found that IPAT had given a reasoned and justified decision. He said the material before the tribunal did not contradict its assessment of the position for Shias in the named city, and that no contradictory information about that city had been identified at the hearing. The court also noted that the tribunal’s decision included some findings in H’s favour, though he was dissatisfied with its overall conclusion.
The court refused the reliefs sought. The judgment does not grant protection status or make a new determination of H’s protection claim; it rules on the judicial-review challenge to IPAT’s decision.