IA and Others (Ahmadis: Rabwah)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | C M G OCKELTON,DEPUTY PRESIDENT |
| Judgment Date | 17 August 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] UKAIT 88 |
| Court | Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
| Date | 17 August 2007 |
[2007] UKAIT 88
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Mr C M G Ockelton, Deputy President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
Senior Immigration Judge Storey
Senior Immigration Judge Gleeson
For the First Appellant: Mr T U Cooray, instructed by Thompson&Co. Solicitors
For the Second Appellant: Ms M Phelan, instructed by Thompson&Co. Solicitors
For the Third Appellant: Mr A Khan, for Thompson&Co. Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr J P Waite, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor
IA and Others (Ahmadis: Rabwah) Pakistan CG
Contrary to what is said in KM (Pakistan) [2004] UKAIT 00302 , MM (Pakistan) CG [2002] UKIAT 05714, KK (Pakistan) [2005] UKIAT 00033, MC (Pakistan) [2004] UKIAT 00139, and AZ (Pakistan) CG [2002] UKIAT 02642, Rabwah does not constitute a safe haven for any Ahmadi at risk of persecution elsewhere in Pakistan and should not, without more, be treated as an appropriate place of internal relocation.
The Ahmadi religion or faith differs in a number of important respects from Sunni Islam. The practitioners and followers of Ahmadiyya regard themselves as Muslim but Sunnis regard them as heretics. For that reason there has been enmity between Sunnis and Ahmadis in Pakistan and in other countries for a considerable period of time. In Pakistan, Ahmadis are subject to restrictions on the public practice of a number of aspects of their faith, largely stemming from Ordinance XX of 1984. That proscribes a number of activities as blasphemous. As a result Ahmadis have sought refuge from the consequences of the practice of their religion, not only in the United Kingdom but, we understand, elsewhere. Ahmadi cases have featured in the Tribunal and its predecessors for many years and there are currently Ahmadi cases amounting to country guidance in the form of MM [2002] UKIAT 05714 and AZ [2002] UKIAT 02642. In addition, there is important guidance to be found in KK [2005] UKIAT 00033. The guidance given on Ahmadi cases has a number of features: one is that an Ahmadi is entitled to practise his religion, despite it being for some purposes a criminal offence in Pakistan, and that any punishment for so doing would accordingly amount to persecution. Another feature is that Ahmadis are said to be distinguished from Muslims by the need or duty, not merely to practise their religion but to proselytise; not merely to preach to other followers of their own religion but also to convert.
A further feature is that it is said that for some Ahmadis at any rate a safe haven is to be found in a town called Rabwah (or Chenab Nagar, to give it its new name) in Punjab province. We must say a little more about that last element. Rabwah is a town of 1,043 acres. The land was bought from the Pakistani government on partition in order to provide a location for the headquarters of one of the two branches of Ahmadiyya whose place of foundation and of loyalty before partition was Qadian in India, which became, of course, no longer available to them. Indeed the Ahmadis themselves are formed of two principal divisions. The Lahori division differs in a number of respects from the other. It is the other division with which we are principally concerned, the division which is called, more often by its enemies than its followers, Qadiani. They are formally based in Rabwah, which is, as we have already indicated, limited in size. Its population is difficult to state exactly but it is between 25,000 and 50,000 people, of whom probably rather over ninety-five per cent are Ahmadis.
The existence of what has been described as an Ahmadi stronghold, as indeed it is when seen from the point of view of the demographic structure, has seemed on a number of occasions to the Tribunal to give a reason for supposing that an Ahmadi who in Pakistan needed to seek refuge, that is to say, an Ahmadi who had a well-founded fear of persecution in his home area, could be expected to obtain refuge in Rabwah rather than seeking the surrogate protection of the international community. Thus, it has become the practice, and it is the guidance that an Ahmadi needing to seek refuge should be regarded generally as able to find such refuge in Rabwah. Rabwah is, according to the existing guidance, a proper place of internal relocation, sufficient to defeat an asylum claim.
Ahmadis in Pakistan are subject to more than occasional outbursts of persecution from Sunnis particularly acting under the auspices of the body called the Khatme Nabuwwat ( KN). That is a neo-fundamentalist organisation which has the aim of the extinction of Ahmadiyya: not, it must be emphasised, the extinction of Ahmadis, although its activities are sometimes violent. Its purpose is to bring an end to the religion by converting its followers to Sunni Islam. But it is the activities of that organisation, the KN, which form the basis of many claims of persecution by Ahmadis. The organisation has branches throughout Pakistan and in particular throughout Punjab province and, specifically, there is a strong branch in Rabwah because, although ninety-five per cent or more of the population are Ahmadis, there is a minority who are not Ahmadis and Rabwah is the place where Ahmadis can evidently be found if there should be anybody who seeks to take action against them.
The evidence is that, because of the proscription of Ahmadiyya, there is little opportunity for those who are prosecuted (under the auspices of the KN or otherwise) to make a proper defence or to invoke effectively the protection of the courts. There is evidence relating to cases almost indefinitely adjourned from month to month or from year to year. There is evidence also that those who might be available as witnesses are unwilling to come forward.
Thus the position has sometimes been, in Ahmadi cases, that a person has claimed to be a follower of the religion; has been therefore assumed for the reason that we have already indicated to be a person who will attempt to convert others; has been at risk from activities of the KN; even if his conduct was clearly not illegal he has been at risk of unmerited prosecution against which defence would be difficult; there has been the further risk of illegal or violent activity by the KN. He has been able in some cases to establish a well-founded fear therefore of persecution in his home area; but the guidance has been that he can safely and appropriately relocate to Rabwah.
Each of the three cases before us has a Rabwah element. The first two have the features we have just indicated. In the first case the appellant appeals against a decision of 25 February 2004 to give removal directions against him as an illegal entrant following the refusal of asylum. There have been two full hearings of his case before the Tribunal already, and the matter is before us on reconsideration as the result of a Consent Order of the Court of Appeal. The terms of the Consent Order and the fact that it was made by consent are of some importance. The order is in the following terms:
“BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1 the appeal be allowed
2 the determination of the Immigration Judge, Miss Clough promulgated on 16 January 2006 be quashed
3 the matter be remitted back to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for re-determination, limited to the issue of whether the Appellant can be expected to relocate to Rabwah. Such issue is to include consideration of the general safety of Ahmadis, as well as whether it would be unduly harsh to relocate there
4. ….”
The facts of the first appellant's case, as summarised by Mr Waite in his helpful skeleton argument provided on behalf of the respondent, are as follows. The Immigration Judge found that the appellant is a married man with six children. He was a partner in a business in his home town. He converted three Muslims to the Ahmadi faith in February 2003. All of them were connected with him as employees or friends of employees. The conversions brought him to the attention of the KN, who attacked his home and threatened to kill him. He escaped to a place about 200 miles away where he worked in a relative's shop. While he was there he learnt that the police in his home town were investigating a blasphemy case against him. He paid a bribe of 30,000 rupees to avoid being investigated. The police, however, refused to register a complaint that he made against the KN. In his new location he began preaching again and converted two men in 2003. A complaint was made to the local mullah and as a result there were threats to kill him. He learnt of the threats and fled to Lahore. In October 2003 his father warned him that the investigations into the original blasphemy case had been reopened. He therefore left Pakistan.
The Immigration Judge disbelieved part of the appellant's evidence. He did find, however, that the appellant felt under an obligation to preach his faith, but that he had restricted his efforts to people known to him or known to friends of his, and that he did not proselytise in a way which would draw adverse attention to him. The Immigration Judge found that it would not be unduly harsh for the appellant to relocate to Rabwah, despite his well-founded fear of persecution in his home area. The Immigration Judge thus dismissed the appeal. On application there was an order for reconsideration on the ground that the Immigration Judge should not have found that the appellant could avoid difficulty by relocating to Rabwah.
The second appellant appeals against a decision on 9 July 2004 to refuse him leave to enter the United Kingdom after refusing him asylum. So far as he is concerned, Mr Waite's summary is to the following effect. The Immigration Judge found that the appellant's entire family are Ahmadi although not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2012-11-13, [2012] UKUT 389 (IAC) (MN and others (Ahmadis – country conditions – risk))
...replaces previous guidance in MJ & ZM (Ahmadis – risk) Pakistan CG [2008] UKAIT 00033, and IA & Others (Ahmadis: Rabwah) Pakistan CG [2007] UKAIT 00088. The guidance we give is based in part on the developments in the law including the decisions of the Supreme Court in HJ (Iran) [2010] UKSC......
-
MN and Others (Ahmadis- country conditions - risk) Pakistan CG
...replaces previous guidance inMJ & ZM (Ahmadis – risk) Pakistan CG [2008] UKAIT 00033, andIA & Others (Ahmadis: Rabwah) Pakistan CG [2007] UKAIT 00088. The guidance we give is based in part on the developments in the law including the decisions of the Supreme Court inHJ (Iran) [2010] UKSC 31......
-
KB (First Appellant) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...replaces previous guidance in MJ & ZM (Ahmadis – risk) Pakistan CG [2008] UKAIT 00033 , andIA & Others (Ahmadis: Rabwah) Pakistan CG [2007] UKAIT 00088. The guidance we give is based in part on the developments in the law including the decisions of the Supreme Court inHJ (Iran) [2010] UKSC ......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2008-04-04, [2008] UKAIT 33 (MJ and ZM (Ahmadis, risk))
...solicitors For the Respondent: Mr J Hall, Instructed by Treasury Solicitor The finding in IA and Others (Ahmadis: Rabwah) Pakistan CG [2007] UKAIT 00088 that the existence of a majority Ahmadi community in Rabwah does not justify dismissing an appeal which would otherwise be allowed remains......