The High Court refused an application for leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that had affirmed a recommendation against granting refugee status to a Pakistani Ahmadi man. The court said the Tribunal’s adverse credibility finding was reasonable and rational on the reasons it gave.
The applicant had challenged the Tribunal’s decision of 20 October 2008. The parties agreed to a “telescoped hearing”, allowing the court to consider leave and any substantive judicial review hearing at the same time. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McDermott on 9 May 2013, concluded that the applicant had not established substantial grounds for leave. It did not grant the judicial review relief he sought.
The applicant said he had faced threats and attacks in Rawalpindi because of his Ahmadiyya faith and preaching. He alleged that he had been injured in a confrontation with local Muslim clerics, detained for three days after a police complaint, and later sought in Lahore. His accounts differed during the asylum process on matters including whether he and his father had complained to police, whether his father was involved in the confrontation, and whether he received hospital treatment. The Tribunal relied on these discrepancies and on the fact that his family continued to live, work and study in Rawalpindi.
The High Court accepted that the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the applicant was Ahmadi. It also acknowledged evidence of discriminatory laws and violence against Ahmadis in Pakistan, and that the events described could have happened. But it said judicial review was not a fresh decision on credibility: the court’s role was to assess whether the Tribunal’s decision-making process was legally sound. It held that the Tribunal was entitled to assess significant inconsistencies in the accounts.
The Tribunal had also considered internal relocation, including to Rabwah, as an alternative to its credibility finding. The High Court treated that as a secondary finding and was not satisfied it was unreasonable or irrational on the information before the Tribunal in 2008.
The judge noted that more recent country information described worsening conditions for Ahmadis in Pakistan. The court said it could not apply that later information in this judicial review, but it could be considered in any further application for subsidiary protection or humanitarian leave to remain. The judgment said a reasonable consideration of the applicant’s case would have to take account of the worsening treatment described.