Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2022-03-30, PA/11954/2019
| Appeal Number | PA/11954/2019 |
| Hearing Date | 12 July 2021 |
| Published date | 26 January 2023 |
| Date | 30 March 2022 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
Appeal Number: PA/11954/2019
IAC-AH-SAR-V4
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/11954/2019
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On the 12 July 2021 |
On the 30 March 2022 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McWILLIAM
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BLUM
Between
was
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr E Fripp, Counsel instructed by Morden Solicitors LLP
For the Respondent: Mr J Holborn, Counsel instructed by the Government Legal Department
DECISION AND REASONS
Table of Contents
|
A |
Introduction including a Brief Overview if MQM |
|
B |
The Evidence |
|
C |
Submissions |
|
D |
Assessment |
|
E |
The Appellant |
|
Appendices Appendix A |
Summary of Documents |
|
Appendix B |
Error of Law Decision |
-
Introduction
-
The appeal involves the determination of the protection claim of the Appellant, WAS. The Appellant’s application on protection grounds was refused by the Secretary of State on 18 November 2019. The Appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) (Judge Skehan) on 27 June 2018 and by the Upper Tribunal on 14 May 2019. The Appellant lodged further submissions on 16 September 2019 which were considered by the Secretary of State as a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules (IRs) and refused on 18 November 2019. The Appellant appealed. The F-tT (Judge Henderson) dismissed the Appellant’s appeal in a decision dated 5 February 2020. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal against the decision of the F-tT. The matter came before Upper Tribunal Judge Blum who found a material error in the decision of the F-tT and set aside the decision of Judge Henderson to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the SSHD on 18 November 2019 on protection grounds (Appendix B).
-
The Appellant’s claim is based on his actual or perceived political opinion as a member of Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), an opposition Pakistani political organisation. MQM has split into two organisations; MQM-London and MQM-Pakistan. Judge Skehan found that the Appellant was not as integrated with MQM-London (MQM-L) as he claimed to be. The judge accepted that he was a member of MQM and would continue to support MQM-Pakistan (MQM-P) in the event of his return to Pakistan. However, the judge was not satisfied that this would expose him to a real risk of persecution. Adverse inferences were drawn from the Appellant having delayed claiming asylum. Judge Skehan rejected the Appellant’s account that his father had been attacked in Pakistan on account of the Appellant’s political activities. The judge did not accept the Appellant’s Facebook profile was known to the Pakistani authorities.
-
The further submissions amounted to a claim that he had been disinherited by his family. He produced evidence that he was part of a new committee of the North London unit of MQM–L. The Appellant provided further background evidence in respect of MQM -L and evidence of social media links and posts.
-
Judge Henderson did not find the Appellant credible. She rejected the Appellant’s claim that he did not have contact or financial support from his family. She was not satisfied that he had been disinherited. She found that no evidence had been presented to change the findings of the earlier appeal decision that the Appellant was a low level MQM member in London and would not be at risk on return.
-
Before Judge Henderson there was a report by Dr Bennett-Jones, a journalist and country expert on Pakistan. UT Judge Blum found that although the judge read and considered paragraphs of the expert evidence, she failed to adequately consider the risk as detailed in parts of the report which were capable of supporting that a person who aligns himself with the MQM–L may face a risk from the Pakistani authorities. Judge Blum found as follows: -
“20. It is correct that the judge did not find that the Appellant was ‘active politically in MQM–London’ [51] because he had not made any political speeches or public statements on behalf of MQM–London, because he did not have any significant role within the organisation, and because of the absence of any political content in his Facebook account. The judge did however find that the Appellant was ‘an active member in the sense of administration and organisational activities’ and that he attended ‘meetings and some demonstrations.’ The judge also accepted that the Appellant was a member of MQM–London and a committee member of the North London unit. Although the judge found some aspects of the Appellant’s account incredible, he did not make any express finding that the Appellant’s involvement in MQM–London was not genuine. The judge failed to consider whether the Appellant would be exposed to a real risk of persecution if he maintained his support for and involvement with MQM–London on return to Pakistan in accordance with the HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 principles. Nor was there any consideration of the availability of internal relocation to a part of Pakistan where the MQM did not have a significant presence. I am satisfied that this error was material and requires the decision to be set aside.
21. There has however been no challenge to the judge’s adverse credibility findings. The judge’s findings of fact relating to threats to his family in Pakistan, detailed at [29] to [32] and [53] are preserved, as is the finding of fact at [39] relating to the Appellant’s receipt of financial support. The judge’s factual findings in respect of the Appellant’s level of involvement with the MQM–London and his Facebook account, as detailed in [33] to [37] and [51] to [52] are also preserved so far as they relate to the appellant’s sur place activities up the date of the First-tier Tribunal hearing”.
-
As part of the introduction we will give a brief overview of the MQM from the Country Policy Information Note Pakistan: Political parties and affiliation, version 1.0, December 2020 (CPIN December 2020) and the background evidence before us generally.1 MQM was founded in 1984 as the party of Urdu speaking Muslims who migrated from India at the time of the 1947 partition, known as Muhajirs. It is a Karachi based secular political party which advocates the rights of Muhajirs. It also has power bases in Hyderabad and Nawabshah districts in Sindh province. Before the 2018 general election MQM exercised political influence in Sindh holding 50 seats in the 167-seat provincial assembly. In 2019 it held 21 seats in the provincial assembly. It is a political force; however, it has been affected by leadership and faction conflicts. In 2016 MQM split into two factions; MQM–L led by Altaf Hussain (AH) living in self-imposed exile (he fled to London in 1992 where he has remained since) in the UK, and MQM–P initially led by Farooq Sattar who was succeeded by Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui in February 2018. The split followed a 2016 speech by AH containing anti-Pakistan rhetoric and causing political violence in Karachi.
-
AH faces a number of charges in Pakistan although 31 of them were the subject of an amnesty in 2009. On 18 June 2020 an anti-terrorism court in Pakistan ruled that AH ordered the killing of fellow MQM leader, Dr Imran Farooq, in London in September 2010. Three members of MQM were sentenced to life imprisonment for Farooq’s murder. On 11 November 2020 it was reported that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) included AH on its, “most wanted terrorists” list. Although the Pakistani authorities consider AH a terrorist, MQM–L is not a proscribed organisation in the United Kingdom or Pakistan.
-
MQM–L boycotted the 2018 general election citing repression of Muhajirs. MQM–P won 7 National Assembly seats and became a member of Pakistan’s governing coalition. MQM–P is the main opposition to the Peoples’ Party of Pakistan (PPP)–led Sindh provincial government.
AH was arrested in London in June 2019 on charges of encouraging terrorism in Pakistan (from London) through hate speech. We take judicial notice of newspaper reports stating...
To continue reading
Request your trial