The High Court has granted a Pakistani Ahmadi man leave to add seven grounds to his judicial-review challenge against the rejection of his asylum claim, finding substantial grounds to argue that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal made errors of law and fact.
The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice M. H. Clark on 29 January 2013, concerns the Tribunal’s decision affirming a recommendation that the applicant should not receive refugee status. The court’s decision was at the leave stage: it did not determine whether he qualifies for asylum or make a final order quashing the Tribunal decision.
The applicant’s identity and Ahmadi faith were not disputed. His account, as summarised in the judgment, was that he came from a prominent Ahmadi family, had suffered attacks and discrimination in Pakistan, and was targeted after a friend became interested in the faith. He said an FIR and legal proceedings under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws followed, prompting him to leave Pakistan in 2011.
The Tribunal had rejected his account as not credible, citing his returns to Pakistan, his family’s continued presence there and its view that he could relocate to Rabwah. It also found he had not established a failure of state protection. The applicant challenged those conclusions and the Tribunal’s treatment of supporting documents and country-of-origin information.
Justice Clark said the Tribunal’s reasoning did not show that it had assessed the claim against the full body of evidence, including country information about conditions for Ahmadis and documents submitted by the applicant. She said the internal-relocation finding was unsustainable in light of evidence that the applicant’s family had moved to Rabwah in 1999 to avoid persecution, and that the state-protection conclusion was unsound on the information before the Tribunal.
The court also criticised the Tribunal’s handling of documents, including a medical report and an FIR. It said the FIR’s allegation that the applicant had influence with police had been selectively relied on, while its other contents were not fairly assessed. The court considered the findings interwoven and declined the respondents’ submission that the relocation finding could be severed from the rest of the decision.
The court granted leave to amend the grounds to challenge the Tribunal’s findings on relocation, state protection and the applicant’s profile in the Ahmadi community; its treatment of documents and the FIR; its use of country information; and the fairness of its credibility assessment. The judgment records the court’s view that the matter should be reconsidered before a substantive hearing, but the order made was to grant leave on the amended grounds.