AA (Ahmandi - Preaching)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Ms. D. K. GILL |
| Judgment Date | 09 October 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] UKIAT 198 |
| Docket Number | Decision number: |
| Date | 09 October 2003 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
[2003] UKIAT 198
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Dr H H Storey (Chairman)
Ms. D. K. Gill
Decision number:
For the Appellant: Mr. A. Miyan, of Thompson & Co. Solicitors
For the Respondent: Miss K. Evans, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
AA (AHMANDI — PREACHING) PAKISTAN
The Appellant (a national of Pakistan, who belongs to the Ahmadi religion) has appealed, with leave, against the determination of Mr. M L Dineen, an Adjudicator, who (following a hearing on 26 th March 2002 at Hatton Cross) dismissed her appeal on asylum and human rights grounds against the Respondent's decision of 8 th November 2002 to refuse to vary leave. The Appellant's appeal to the Adjudicator was brought under Section 69(2) and Section 65 of the Immigration and Asylum Appeals Act 1999 (the 1999 Act).
Basis of claim (summary) : The Appellant is an Ahmadi by birth, born in Lahore. She was an active member of the ladies wing of the Ahmadi community in Madina Town, Faisalabad. Since 1999, she was “Muavin Sadar Lajna”, which was a post of assistant to the president of the ladies wing. She also undertook preaching. During her time in Pakistan, she lived in three places:– Faisalabad, Gujranwala and Lahore. The following sets out the main points of her accounts:
Up until August 2001 – Faisalabad:
(i) Up until August 2001, the Appellant lived in Faisalabad. Whilst living in Faisalabad, she experienced the following problems:
a) In 1974, her home was burnt by mullahs. Problems continued after that.
b) Her recent problems started in 1999. In that year, her father-in-law donated a plot of land in Madina Town for the building of an Ahmadi mosque. The mullahs of Khatme Nabuwat (KN) interrupted the building of the mosque and threatened her family.
c) In June 2001, she was beaten by boys belonging to the KN.
d) On 28 th July 2001, her father-in-law was murdered on the instructions of the mullahs of KN.
e) After her father-in-law's death, the threats and harassment by KN continued. Members of it pulled her scarf from her head on a number of occasions when she was shopping.
August 2001 until February 2002 – Gujranwala:
(ii) In August 2001, the Appellant, with her husband and mother, moved to Gujranwala. They experienced some problems there.
February 2002 to end April 2002
(iii) From February 2002 to the end of April 2002, the Appellant visited the United Kingdom.
End April 2002 to June 2002 – at “habitual address”:
(iv) She then returned to Pakistan. At paragraph 19 of her witness statement dated 19 th March 2003 (which was before the Adjudicator), she says that “after some time they found us at my habitual address”.
June 2002 to September 2002 – Lahore:
(v) In June 2002, she moved to her sister-in-law's home in Lahore. Some days later, the mullahs came to the house in a large group, used abusive language, fired weapons in the air, broke the main door and windows and tried to kill the Appellant and her family, who escaped from the back door and went to a neighbour's home.
Before this incident, she and her family received threatening telephone calls from the mullahs. They reported the threats to the police who did not listen and did not take any action. The officer in charge said that, if they approached higher authorities, the Appellant and her family would be charged for preaching their faith.
After this incident, the Appellant decided to leave Pakistan and come to the United Kingdom, where one of her sons has been granted exceptional leave to remain and another son has been granted asylum.
After the Appellant's arrival in the United Kingdom:
(vi) In December 2002 (after the Appellant's arrival in the United Kingdom), the mullahs attacked her sister-in-law's home and her daughter's home. They beat her sister and daughter and her sister's wrist was fractured.
The Appellant's husband and two daughters remain in Pakistan. Her husband is in hiding.
At her screening interview (page A3 of the statutory appeal bundle, question 1.30), the Appellant said that she had visited the United Kingdom five times previously. It is not clear whether she visited the United Kingdom five times including the last occasion in September 2002 or whether she has travelled to the United Kingdom a total of six times.
2. The Adjudicator's findings: The following is a brief summary of the Adjudicator's main findings:
(a) He accepted that the Appellant was active in the Ahmadi religion, both as an organiser and as a preacher.
(b) He accepted that her father-in-law was murdered in July 2001 but he was not satisfied that the murder was carried out on the instruction of mullahs, or that its motive was religious (for the reasons he gave in paragraph 43). If there was any religious element to this killing, he was not satisfied that it had anything do with the donation of land for the building of a mosque, for the reasons he gave in paragraph 45.
(c) He accepted that, on a number of occasions, the Appellant was threatened and harassed by people associated with the KN and that these incidents included one where she was struck by boys while on her way to the mosque, and occasions when her scarf was pulled from her head.
(d) He did not accept that the Appellant suffered persecution after moving to Gujranwala, for the reasons he gave in paragraph 47.
(e) He found that the Appellant would not have returned to Pakistan in 2002 if she had had a well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan.
(f) He did not accept that there was a raid on the Appellant's sister-in-law's home in Lahore in June 2003, for the reasons he gave in paragraph 49.
(g) He did not accept that there was an attack on the Appellant's sister-in-law's and daughter's home in December 2002 for the reasons he gave in paragraph 51.
(h) He stated that if, contrary to his findings, the Appellant was at risk of persecution in Faisalabad, Gujranwala or Lahore, he found that she had available an internal flight option. She could relocate to Rabwa (now called Chenab Nagar), for the reasons he gave in paragraph 52. He also found that there was adequate state protection.
The grounds of application challenge the Adjudicator's assessment of credibility in several respects. The grounds also challenge the Adjudicator's findings as to the internal flight option and the adequacy of state protection. Permission to appeal was granted in general terms, which meant that all the grounds were before the Tribunal.
At the hearing before us, we heard submissions in opening from Mr. Miyan, at which time he mentioned that he had with him a bundle of decisions which he said included reported decisions which he said showed that preachers were at risk of persecution in Pakistan. However, these documents had not been adduced before the hearing in compliance with the directions which had been issued. In any event, on examination, they all transpired to be unreported decisions which post-dated 19 th May 2003, from which date Practice Direction No 10 came into effect. The procedure set out in paragraph 4 of that Practice Direction (which applies to unreported decisions promulgated after 19 th May 2003) had not been followed. We therefore excluded these decisions. Mr. Miyan also sought to produce, at this late stage, a document which was part of the subjective evidence in this case and which had not been previously produced. Given the lateness of the production of this document, we decided to exclude this document as well.
We now set out the main thrust of Mr. Miyan's submissions. Members of the Ahmadi faith are under a duty to proselytise. The Adjudicator had found that the Appellant was a preacher. This means that she proselytises. A member of the Ahmadi faith would not preach to other members of the Ahmadi faith. They would preach to those who do not belong to the Ahmadi faith in order to try and convert them. Mr. Miyan referred us to material in the background documents which he submitted shows that Ahmadis are persecuted; they do not receive protection; the police fail to do anything; and they are at risk of being charged under the blasphemy laws. Paragraph 4.68 of the CIPU report dated April 2003 refers to a party called Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal Pakistan (MMA), which holds 60 seats in the National Assembly. This means that it is the third largest party in Pakistan. Paragraph 4.69 of the CIPU report states that the MMA is a coalition of religious parties. In Mr. Miyan's submission, given that the KN is a religious party, this means that the mullahs of the MMA are connected to the mullahs of the KN. Whilst other organisations have been banned in Pakistan, the Pakistani authorities have not banned the KN. It is significant that, according to the Amnesty International Report at page 69 of the Appellant's bundle, the KN has formed a new Mujahideen Force. Its aim is to block the activities of the Ahmadis. Two hundred youths have signed the enrolment forms with their blood.
In Mr. Miyan's submission, the objective evidence shows that preachers of the Ahmadi faith are persecuted in Pakistan. The Appellant would not be able to relocate to Rabwa. He referred us to paragraph 6.50 of the CIPU report which states that the entire population of Rabwa was charged under Section 298–C of the Pakistan Penal Code. Although this happened in 1989, the First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged at that time was an open one and could be used at any time. The Appellant would be at risk of being charged under Section 298–C. Furthermore, paragraph 6.113 states that women have a limited internal flight...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hussain v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...for that person in each and every part of Pakistan. It seems that a similar proposition was put to this Tribunal in re A (Pakistan) [2003] UKIAT 00198 where, at paragraph 11.10 of the determination the Tribunal, correctly in our judgement, rejected that submission. Each case must be judged ......
-
KK (Ahmadi – Unexceptional – Risk on Return)
...and sufficient reasons for such a finding would be required. (ii) She drew attention to a previous reported Tribunal determination of [2003] UKIAT 00198A (Pakistan) notified on 9 October 2003 which was therefore available to the Adjudicator. She argued that this case, which was a stronger c......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2003-10-09, [2003] UKIAT 198 (AA (Ahmadi, Preaching))
...font-weight: normal } IN THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Heard at: Field House Decision number: AA (Ahmandi - Preaching) Pakistan [2003] UKIAT 00198 Heard on: 19th September 2003 Date typed: 19th September 2003 Date promulgated: 09/10/2003 The IMMIGRATION ACTS Before: DR H H STOREY (CHAIRMA......
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Ahmadi have been imprisoned "They are prohibited from holding conferences and proselytising is illegal". The judge refers to a case [2003] UKIAT 00198A where the tribunal enjoined adjudicators: "to assess the real risk of serious harm to Ahmadi appellants by looking at the manner and persis......