MM (Ahmadi-Internal Relocation)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | DR H H STOREY |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] UKIAT 5714 |
| Date | 10 December 2002 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. HX56528-2001 |
[2002] UKIAT 5714
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Dr H H Storey (CHAIRMAN)
Mrs S I Hewitt
Mrs M L Roe
Appeal No. HX56528-2001
MM (Ahmadi-Internal Relocation) Pakistan CG
The appellant, a national of Pakistan, has appealed with leave of the Tribunal against a determination of Adjudicator, Miss A D Baker, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State giving directions for removal having refused asylum. Ms M Phelan of Counsel instructed by Thompson & Co. Solicitors appeared for the appellant. Mr S Walker appeared for the respondent.
The Tribunal has decided to dismiss this appeal.
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 compliant of harassment.
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.”
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 grounds, ably amplified by Ms Phelan, contended that the adjudicator was wrong to find that the appellant would have a viable internal relocation alternative in Rabwah. The appellant had already relocated within Lahore in order to evade his persecutors. The adjudicator failed to appreciate that in Rabwah the appellant would be targeted by the same group of Muslim extremists who had targeted him in his home area. She had also failed to consider factors relevant to undue hardship, speaking only about security and “safety”. The grounds further contended that the background evidence, including the April 2002 CIPU report at paragraph 5.3. 20 and the US State Department report for 2001 did not demonstrate that Rabwah is safe. The US State Department report stated that is has often been a site of violence against Ahmadis. It could not be said that there would be any effective state protection against such harm because the authorities were actively complicit in legislating against Ahmadis and also condoning violence against them. The situation was thus analogous to that of Pakistani women subject to domestic violence as analysed by the House of Lords in Shah and Islam. There were plans afoot to gradually buy up properties owned by Ahmadis in Rabwah and to “Muslimise” Rabwah. There was employment discrimination practised against teachers, police etc. The grounds also alleged that in reaching her conclusions the adjudicator wrongly viewed the appellant as someone who was not actively proselytising his faith.
Mr Walker for the respondent maintained that on the appellant's own evidence he had not sought to actively proselytise. In view of recent developments in Pakistan politics in the wake of September 11 th, it could not be assumed the authorities would encourage or condone the actions of extreme fundamentalist groups, no matter who they targeted. There had been arrests made by the police after an attack on an Ahmadi mosque.
We are not persuaded by the grounds of appeal that it would be unduly harsh for this appellant and his family to relocate to Rabwah.
We would accept that the adjudicator's treatment of the issue of internal relocation was incomplete. She wrongly appeared to assume that the alternative site of protection being safe or secure for an appellant sufficed for it to be a viable option....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2008-04-04, [2008] UKAIT 33 (MJ and ZM (Ahmadis, risk))
...ratio of which is summarised in the following précis: “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......
-
R (Mehmood) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...headnote to the AIT's determination states as follows: “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 ......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2007-10-23, [2007] UKAIT 88 (IA and others (Ahmadis: Rabwah))
...Mr J P Waite, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor 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 saf......
-
MJ and ZM (Ahmadis – risk)
...ratio of which is summarised in the following précis: “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......