Tanveer Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 2002 |
| Date | 19 February 2002 |
| Court | Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Collins J President C M G Ockelton Esq Deputy President P R Moulden Esq Vice-President
Miss S Panagiotopoulou for the appellant
C Trent for the respondent
Cases referred to in the determination:
Thaukumar Vijeyarabnam v Secretary of State for the Home Department (HX/26021/92, April 1998, unreported).
Sait Findik and anr v Secretary of State for the Home Department (TH/26021/92, April 1998, unreported).
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nasim Khan (CO/107/1999, July 2000, unreported).
A, B, C and D v Secretary of State for the Home Department (HX/6115/96, July 1999, unreported).
Fodjo v Secretary of State for the Home Department (C/2000/220, February 2000, unreported).
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Shen [2000] INLR 389.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Mukhtar Mohammed [2001] Imm AR 162.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Jose Davila-PugaECAS (C/2000/3119, May 2001, unreported).
Makozo (20023) (unreported).
Evidence — documentary evidence — evidential value — where the burden lay of showing that a document was reliable — circumstances where a finding of forgery might be made.
The appellant was a citizen of Pakistan. He had been refused asylum by the Secretary of State and his appeal had been dismissed by a special adjudicator. On appeal to the Tribunal counsel challenged the approach by the adjudicator to documentary evidence produced by the appellant and which the adjudicator discounted as not authentic, concluding that the burden of proof of showing that it was reliable lay on the appellant.
The Tribunal considered the relevant settled cases.
Held
1. It was for an appellant in an asylum appeal to demonstrate that a document on which he wished to rely could be relied on.
2. In assessing whether a document should be relied on, it should be considered in relation to all the evidence.
3. It would not as a rule be necessary to characterise a document as a forgery.
Determination
1. The appellant, who is a citizen of Pakistan, appeals with leave against the determination of an adjudicator (Mr Ρ Digney) dismissing his appeal against the respondent's decision to give directions for his removal from the United Kingdom and to refuse him asylum.
2. This is a starred case which is intended to give guidance on the questions raised and should be followed in preference to any other Tribunal decisions which touch on these issues. This decision should therefore be regarded as authoritative and is binding on all adjudicators and Tribunal chairman.
3. The appellant arrived in the United Kingdom on 1 May 2000. He claimed asylum on 4 May 2000. The respondent's decision is dated 23 April 2001. The adjudicator heard the appeal on 9 August 2001 and his determination was promulgated on 14 August 2001. Leave to appeal was granted on 12 November 2001.
4. The appellant claimed to fear persecution from the authorities in Pakistan because of his membership of the MQM, which he joined in 1997. He had attended rallies since 1993. In 1998 he became the general secretary of the party in his area after his brother, who held the same post before him, was killed. His father was an area controller in Karachi. In December 1999 unknown people murdered a member of the MQM breakaway group, MQM (Haqiqi). The appellant was named as one of four suspects. He was arrested and detained for three days before being released because of lack of evidence. In February 2000 two further suspects were arrested and one was reported killed attempting to escape. Subsequently the appellant was arrested on a number of occasions, for a few hours only each time. He was arrested again, in connection with the murder, granted bail but after another suspect was killed he was advised to flee. His party arranged for him to leave the country. He said that the police still wanted to arrest him for the suspected murder. He produced a FIR, an arrest warrant, a letter from his party, the MQM, dated 27 February 2001 and newspaper cuttings.
5. The adjudicator found that the arrest warrant and the FIR were not likely to be genuine. He gave no weight to the letter from the MQM. It was unlikely that the appellant's friend would have been able to obtain them so easily or at all. His account of how he did so was vague. The appellant said that his family received a number of warrants, but he did not produce any of them. There was no reason why a warrant should have been issued on 3 January 2001. If it had been, it was difficult to see how the appellant's friend could have heard of it. If the FIR was genuine it was not likely that the appellant would have been released so easily. The adjudicator said that it was for the appellant to persuade him that the documents were genuine, to the usual low standard, and he had not done so.
6. The adjudicator went on to consider whether the appellant's account of events could be true even if the documents were false. Quite properly he considered whether the appellant used false documents to strengthen a genuine case.
7. On the country evidence before him the adjudicator found that the police arrested active members of the MQM arbitrarily and many were killed, particularly in the period before the coup of October 1999. After that date illtreatment and killings decreased. Whilst MQM activists were ill-treated and held for long periods the adjudicator found that the appellant was not an activist. Furthermore, if there had been a murder charge against him, even a false one, he would not have been released so easily. This would also indicate that he was not perceived to be a MQM activist. The adjudicator accepted that the appellant had been arrested on two occasions but concluded that, because of his speedy release, the authorities had no serious interest in him. If he were suspected of murdering a member of the opposing group it was most unlikely he would have escaped unscathed.
8. The adjudicator concluded that the appellant, who was twice arrested and twice released speedily and without charge, did not have any outstanding warrants for his arrest. His political involvement was at the lowest end of the scale. There was no reason to suppose that he was now of any interest to the authorities. The country evidence showed that, following the coup, the position of MQM members more active than the appellant had actually improved. Somebody in the appellant's position would not be at risk.
9. The adjudicator went on to find that, even if he were wrong in these conclusions, an individual such as the appellant, who was not ‘high profile’, would be safe if he relocated to another part of the country. The appellant had not established either a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or that his human rights would be infringed.
10. The grant of leave to appeal records grounds alleging that the adjudicator's rejection of the authenticity of the warrant and FIRs was based on an approach which incorrectly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
VT (Article 22 Procedures Directive – Confidentiality) Sri Lanka
...of the European Court of Human Rights in Singh v Belgium (No: 33210/11) did not justify departing from the general principles outlined in Tanveer Ahmed. The Tribunal in Tanveer Ahmed envisaged that there might be cases where it is proper for inquiries to be made. Singh v Belgium was such a ......
-
MA (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Jones 1 There are before the court two appeals which raise a common issue concerning the principles established in Tanveer Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] INLR 345 in relation to the authenticity and reliability of documents in asylum cases. MA appeals, with permis......
-
MJ (Singh v Belgium: Tanveer Ahmed Unaffected) Afghanistan [Upper Tribunal]
...of Human Rights in Singh v Belgium (Application No. 33210/2011) neither justify nor require any departure from the guidance set out in Tanveer Ahmed [2002] Imm AR 318 (starred). The Tribunal in Tanveer Ahmed envisaged the existence of particular cases where it may be appropriate for enquir......
-
R (CJ) v Cardiff County Council
...function properly, to include bribery to do it wrongly. 113 All this illustrates the importance of the approach in Tanveer Ahmed v SSHD [2002] Imm AR 318, that the documentary evidence along with provenance needs to be weighed in the light of all the evidence in the case. Documentary eviden......