H (Q) [Pakistan] v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Eagar |
| Judgment Date | 17 September 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 582 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 17 September 2015 |
[2015] IEHC 582
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – The Refugee Act 1996 – Appeal against decision of Refugee Appeals Tribunal – Judicial review – Telescoped hearing – Council Directive 2004/83/EC – Fear of persecution – Fear of persecution – Fair procedures
Facts: The applicant had filed an application for leave to seek judicial review against the determination of the first named respondent that the applicant should not be declared a refugee. The applicant contended that the decision of the first named respondent in denying her and her daughter the status of a refugee on the ground of lack of evidence of past persecution in the country of origin and availability of the option of internal relocation was illogical and irrational owing to the treatment meted out to her and her daughter in the country of origin.
Mr. Justice Eagar granted leave to seek judicial review to the applicant and set aside the decision of the first named respondent and directed that the appeal of the applicant should be reconsidered by a different member of the first named respondent. The Court held that in order to determine the actual act of persecution, the first named respondent must examine the nature of the specific situation to which the applicant was exposed in her country of origin. The Court found that the imposition of a requirement of an exceptional Ahmadi, inability of the applicant to attend mosque in Ireland within a month of her arrival in Ireland and ignorance of the existence of anti-religion law in the country of origin were the erroneous observations made by the first named respondent. The Court held that the breach of rights in the country of origin must be of a nature that would render a person concerned unable to live therein. The Court found that the first named respondent had failed to give due consideration to the country of origin information given the enforcement of blasphemy laws in Pakistan.
1. On the 30 th day of July 2015, this court gave an order extending the period of time with regard to good and reasonable grounds set out by the Applicants (Q.H. and her daughter G.H).
2. The grounds upon which relief was sought in the statement of grounds in relation to Q.H. were as follows:
) The Tribunal erred in law and in fact that the Applicant had not suffered persecution in the past. In the alternative the said finding is irrational.
) The imposition of a requirement that one must have a high profile as an Ahmadi is irrational in light of the country reports placed before the Tribunal.
) Without prejudice to the aforesaid the Tribunal erred in finding that the Applicant lacks a "profile" as an Ahmadi in circumstances where the Applicant comes from a high profile Ahmadi family.
) The decision is internally inconsistent in that the Tribunal Member holds that the Applicant has never engaged in preaching or conversion while then acknowledging that the Applicant was "involved in religious education of Ahmadi children."
) The finding that internal relocation is available to the Applicant was made without regard to the evidence, including country reports, placed before the Tribunal.
) The Minister lacked the jurisdiction to make the decision to refuse the Applicant refugee status in circumstances where the Applicant was not afforded a lawful asylum process.
) The Respondents failed to have any or any reasonable regard to the grant of leave to remain to the husband of the Applicant.
) If necessary an order providing for an extension of time.
3. The statement of grounds was verified by the affidavit of Q.H. She said that she was born in Pakistan on the 30 th of November 1978 into a committed and prominent Ahmadi family, and she had a life-long commitment to the Ahmadi faith. She said that she had suffered persecution since childhood on account of her faith. Her husband was forced to flee Pakistan in fear for his life in 2005. He was refused a grant of refugee status by reason of a finding that state protection would be available to him in Pakistan. Her husband had since been granted leave to remain in Ireland in circumstances where his representations were substantially directed to his faith and the treatment of the Ahmadi in Pakistan.
4. She said that as a result of the increasing persecution she experienced, she was also forced to flee Pakistan together with her daughter. They arrived in Ireland on the 8 th of October 2011 and made separate and unsuccessful asylum applications.
5. She stated that, when after being notified that the Commissioner had refused her a grant of Refugee status, Notice of Appeal was submitted to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which contained substantial country reports in relation to the treatment of Ahmadis in Pakistan. I have set out a sample of the country reports in respect of her daughter G.H. which relate to the persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan.
6. The first-named Respondent recited that the Applicant was born on the 30 th of November 1978 in Sakhar, Pakistan. She is an Ahmadi Muslim and has had the benefit of eighteen years of education graduating with a diploma in Fine Art. The Applicant was employed between October 2006 and May 2010 at a Muslim high school as an Art teacher. The Applicant is married with one dependant child who is the subject of a separate asylum appeal. The Applicant has one brother and one sister in Pakistan and a sister in the United States of America.
7. The Applicant complained of discrimination generally that she suffered throughout her life, particularly in school; she claimed she would receive less attention than other non-Ahmadi children. She claimed that they could not participate in religious or social programmes and that other children would shun them in the school yard. She claimed that her father was a district head (leader of District Lahore) of the Ahmadi group. Her father died in a car accident when she was only two and half years of age. Her mother, as a result, had to start working in a factory school, and the applicant claimed that her mother did not receive promotion because of her Ahmadi faith and claims that other teachers were hostile to her.
8. The Applicant's mother was president of the Sakhar district Ahmadis Women's Group. She claimed that she would tour every area but started having problems with an Arabic teacher, and a particular Mullah put up posters outside their colony with names of all the Ahmadi residents on it including the Applicant's mother with a threat stating that they would be killed if they moved outside. This poster posting exercise took place in approximately 1995 or 1996. It was in 2000 that the Applicant's mother quit her job and moved to Karachi.
9. The Applicant was asked why her mother continued to do what she did if she felt that she was under threat. The Applicant stated that her mother was the only source of income and had no choice but to go to work in defiance of this edict. Her mother became president of the Ahmadi women's society, and the Applicant was the secretary of the Ahmadi Girl's Group which meant she was responsible for religious education. She claimed that they would meet once a week and they could either come to her or she would go to them. The age group concerned was approximately six to fourteen years of age, and the numbers in the group were six to seven and this was her position from 2001.
10. The Applicant claims that, in general, they suffered difficulties in Pakistan. She claimed that people would throw stones at their house and that people shunned them. The Applicant herself married in 2003 and moved to Faisalabad. The Applicant claimed that her husband was active in the Ahmadi community, and she started participating in the Faisalabad area. She claims that her husband started receiving threatening telephone calls and ultimately arranged to leave. He obtained a study visa and came to Ireland and applied for asylum. The Applicant's husband was refused asylum, in an appeal which was heard by the same Respondent. He found that there was no basis to overturn the original decision in the Applicant's husband's decision and the first-named Respondent said this was tangentially relevant to this Applicant's case, in the sense that they are part of the same family unit (although he left Pakistan in 2005, and she and her daughter left in 2011 when the situation had deteriorated in Pakistan). He stated that the evidence in the Applicant's husband's case clearly showed that neither the Applicant's husband's home nor his business were ever targeted, despite the fact that he claimed to have a higher profile than any of the remainder of his family. The Applicant's husband also claimed that none of his family suffered any serious problems in Pakistan despite them being members of the Ahmadi faith. The Applicant's husband gave evidence that he did not suffer any problems in Lahore apart from the discrimination he suffered at work.
11. The Applicant stated that at her school she had difficulties. The school principal suggested that she obtain a job elsewhere, as parents had threatened to withdraw their children. She claimed that this man did not want to sack her; he simply suggested she should perhaps look elsewhere for work. There was some discrepancy in the Applicant's evidence in relation to this particular aspect of her story, between the questionnaire and the previous evidence. At the hearing, the Applicant claimed that the incident with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial