The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Pakistani man’s asylum appeal, finding that the Tribunal did not properly assess alleged religious persecution or the risk he could face if returned to Pakistan.
Mr Justice Eagar made the order on 28 July 2015 in judicial review proceedings brought by F.A. (Pakistan). He remitted the matter to the Tribunal for de novo consideration by a different member. The court formally granted leave in the telescoped proceedings. It did not decide the asylum claim itself.
The applicant said he was a Christian and feared persecution by members of the Muslim community and through Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. He alleged that a group assaulted him in August 2009, forced him to read the Koran and that he escaped when others arrived. The Tribunal had rejected his account as not credible and concluded that his fear was not objectively well-founded.
The High Court held that the Tribunal’s finding that discrimination against Christians did not amount to persecution was irrational and unreasonable in light of the country information and international human rights provisions considered by the court. It also found that the Tribunal had not explained what aspects of the applicant’s demeanour supported its adverse assessment, leaving insufficient information to assess the lawfulness of that reasoning.
The court said it could not find adequate reasons for the Tribunal’s conclusion that the assault and escape account was implausible, having regard to the applicant’s statements in his questionnaire and interview. It further found that rejecting the account of past events did not remove the obligation to assess whether he faced a future risk of persecution on return. The Tribunal had confined its consideration to past events and had not applied a forward-looking risk assessment.
The court also found that the applicant’s case about a risk of state persecution connected to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws had not been properly considered. It noted the Tribunal had referred to country information about abuses under those laws, but held that this did not amount to proper consideration of the essential part of the claim.
Mr Justice Eagar expressed strong dissatisfaction that the Tribunal did not provide a record of the oral evidence and questions at the appeal hearing. However, he said he had not decided the case on that basis. The order quashing the decision was based on the court’s findings about persecution, demeanour, credibility and the missing forward-looking assessment.