The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing a Pakistani child’s appeal for refugee protection, finding that the decision relied crucially on treating her as an “unexceptional” Ahmadi. The court directed that another tribunal member determine the appeal; it did not decide the child’s protection claim itself.
The judicial review concerned a tribunal decision dated 29 April 2010. The child, identified in the judgment as D.A., was born in Ireland in 2008 and is of Pakistani nationality. Her mother, acting on her behalf, said the family feared that she would face problems in Pakistan because her father was an Ahmadi preacher. The mother said the child had been enrolled in a group that would require her to train as a preacher from age four and begin preaching at 15.
The tribunal had refused the parents’ refugee appeals. In the child’s case, it said the parents had not established that they were “exceptional Ahmadis” and found no real risk to the child by association. The tribunal also noted the child’s very young age and the limited supporting documentation. The mother’s claims about the child’s future preaching and the danger she would face were allegations, not findings by the High Court.
The child’s counsel argued that anti-Ahmadi laws and practices in Pakistan, together with threats and violence, meant she would face persecution and could not safely relocate. Counsel also argued that the tribunal had failed to assess her case individually and give adequate reasons for rejecting additional evidence. The respondents relied in part on the earlier refusal of the parents’ claims, which had not been challenged.
Mr Justice Eagar referred to a 2012 European Court of Justice ruling on religious freedom, which he understood to mean that protection did not require an Ahmadi to be “exceptional” and that public religious practice could be relevant to persecution. He noted the tribunal had not had the benefit of that ruling when it made its decision, but concluded that its decision depended crucially on the “unexceptional” classification and was vitiated by natural or constitutional justice.
The court granted certiorari, quashing the 2010 tribunal decision, and directed that the child’s appeal be decided by another tribunal member. It did not grant the requested restraint on deportation in the order described in the judgment, nor did it determine that the child or her parents were entitled to refugee status.