The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing an asylum appeal by a Pakistani child, finding that the Tribunal did not properly assess evidence about the treatment of Ahmadis or the child’s circumstances.
In a judgment delivered on 17 September 2015, Mr Justice Eagar granted leave in a telescoped judicial review hearing and directed that the appeal be reconsidered by a different Tribunal member. The court did not itself decide whether the child qualified for refugee status.
The child, identified as G.H. and described as a minor, brought the proceedings through her mother and next friend, Q.H. The Tribunal had affirmed the Commissioner’s refusal of refugee status in a decision notified to the mother on 13 July 2012. It found that the child had not shown a real risk of serious harm on return to Pakistan. While accepting she would face some discrimination, the Tribunal said the evidence did not establish a real risk of persecution and that her treatment at school did not amount to persecution.
The mother’s affidavit said the child was born in Pakistan in 2005 into an Ahmadi family and had experienced hostility because of her faith. The judgment recounts claims that the child was present when her mother received threatening calls and was verbally abused; that a teacher refused to help her finish a meal because she was a “non-believer”; and that a teacher slapped her. The mother said she was unable to obtain a satisfactory response from school officials. These were matters presented in the asylum proceedings, not findings independently made by the High Court.
The applicant’s counsel argued that the Tribunal had relied too heavily on decisions concerning the child’s parents and wrongly required her to be an “exceptional” Ahmadi. The respondents disputed that the parental-decision complaint was properly raised and argued that decision-makers could consider parents’ cases where a child’s claim relied on the same circumstances.
The court said a child’s best interests must be the primary consideration and that the assessment of feared harm must account for a child’s perspective and vulnerability. It held that the Tribunal had failed to properly analyse country-of-origin information about treatment of Ahmadis by organisations and the state, and had not adequately considered the child’s personal circumstances as required by Regulation 5 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations.
The court concluded that the Tribunal’s treatment of religious persecution as amounting merely to discrimination was irrational and unreasonable in light of the country information and human rights provisions discussed in the judgment. It quashed the Tribunal decision and ordered reconsideration by a different member.