MAHMOOD ALI MIRZA v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LAWS |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWCA Civ 1119 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | C1/2003/0328 |
| Date | 29 June 2004 |
[2004] EWCA Civ 1119
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
(D H STOREY (CHAIRMAN))
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Laws
Mr Justice Wall
C1/2003/0328
MS M PHELAN (instructed by Thompson & Co, Tooting) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Tuesday, 29th June 2004
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal of 10th December 2002, when they dismissed the applicant's appeal against the determination made by the adjudicator on 10th June 2002. The adjudicator in turn had dismissed the applicant's appeal against removal directions set by the Secretary of State after refusing asylum. Maurice Kay LJ refused permission to appeal on consideration of the papers on 26th May 2004.
The applicant needs a short extension of time in which to appeal. According to a letter which the court has received from him, the delay was caused or partly caused by the very sad fact of his mother's sudden death. I would not hold against him on time grounds.
The applicant is a national of Pakistan and a follower of the Ahmadi faith. He arrived in the United Kingdom on 4th September 2001 accompanied by four dependants and applied for asylum on 6th September 2001. That was refused by a letter dated 18th October 2001. The IAT succinctly summarised the adjudicator's findings on appeal to her as follows:
"3. The adjudicator found that the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution in his home area of Lahore on the basis of his being a member of the Ahmadi sect. He had become the target of a group of Muslim extremists known as Khatme Nabuwat (sometimes spelt Nabuwwat) . She also concluded that the background evidence suggested that in Lahore the appellant would not find effective protection from the authorities who are sometimes complicit in such persecutory activity. She noted that in the appellant's case the police had detained him after he had made a complaint of harassment.
4. However the adjudicator decided to dismiss the appeal because she considered the appellant had a viable internal relocation alternative in Rabwah (now known as Chenab Nagar) where he and his family could return and live safely. In reaching this decision she took into account the appellant's intention to devote his son to the Ahmadi faith. She noted:
'Although Rabwah does sometimes suffer staged marches from militant Sunni mullahs, crowds of 100 to 200 people, and this can sometimes lead to violence there is not established on the background a reasonable degree of likelihood that he would suffer treatment amounting to persecution for his religious faith.'
5. As regards the appellant's human rights grounds of appeal, she concluded that the appellant's Art 3 claim failed for the same reasons as did his asylum claim. Regarding Art 8, she noted that the appellant would be returning with his own close family unit and that in the UK he had only had a brother in law and his family. He noted there was no evidence that the relationship with the brother in law was particularly close or of significant duration."
The principal grounds of appeal to the IAT, as the tribunal stated, were that the adjudicator was wrong to hold that the applicant could safely relocate in Rabwah. The IAT went on to state:
"11. As regards the security of Ahmadis in general in Rabwah, the Tribunal continues to take the view that this area is in general safe for Ahmadis. Ms Phelan is quite right to point to materials highlighting the fact that the area is not trouble-free. It has often been the site of violence against Ahmadis. However, the background evidence equally makes clear that there are a very considerable number of Ahmadis who live in Rabwah who are able to live normal lives without significant difficulties. There is some evidence of discrimination in the form of employment but equally there is evidence indicating that Ahmadis make up the bulk of the employed population of Rabwah."
Indeed, as a footnote, I understand it to be uncontentious that the population of Rabwah as to over 90 per cent is made up of persons following the Ahmadi faith.
The tribunal proceeded to accept, for reasons which they gave at paragraph 12, that if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd
...is for use at work. The same may be said of the lift which was (rightly, I think) held to be work equipment in PRP Architects v Reid [2004] EWCA Civ 1119; [2007] ICR 78. The Framework Directive 89/391/EEC "on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health ......