R(FU) v Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform & Other
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Mary Irvine, |
| Judgment Date | 20 July 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] IEHC 355 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 20 July 2009 |
[2009] IEHC 355
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
IMMIGRATION
Asylum
Fear of persecution - Conflicting country of origin information - Assessment of credibility - Treatment of country of origin information - Internal relocation - Substantial grounds - Whether decision explained with sufficient clarity - L (Y) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2009] IEHC 62,(Unrep, HC, Cooke J, 11/2/2009), McNamara v An Bord Pleanála (No 1) [1995] 2 ILRM 125, Traore v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2004] IEHC 606, (Unrep, HC, Finlay Geoghegan J, 14/5/2004), Camara v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Unrep, HC, Kelly J, 26/7/2000), East Donegal Co-operative Livestock Mart Ltd v Attorney General [1970] IR 317, Imafu v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2005] IEHC 416, (Unrep, HC, Peart J, 9/12/2005), Banzuzi v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2007] IEHC 2, (Unrep, HC, Feeney J, 18/1/2007), DVTS v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2007] IEHC 305, [2008] 3 IR 476 and MIA v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2008] IEHC 336, (Unrep, HC, Hedigan J, 29/10/2008) considered - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (No 29), s 5 - European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (SI 518/2006), reg 10 (2) - Leave to apply for judicial review refused (2007/1206JR - Irvine J - 20/7/2009) [2009] IEHC 355
R (UF) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Facts: The applicant from Pakistan sought leave for judicial review of a decision to refuse him refugee status. He alleged a fear of persecution arising from his membership of a minority movement. The issue arose as to whether he was a high profile member of a particular faith and whether internal relocation within Pakistan was a viable alternative to offset any real risk of persecution. The applicant sought to place reliance on Regulation 10(2) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006. The applicant alleged that the decision of the respondent lacked clarity.
Held by Irvine J. That there was ample evidence for the Tribunal member to reach the conclusion that she did. The issue was not one in respect of a conflict of country of origin information between the two reports. The decision was not lacking in clarity. It was clear from the decision that the Tribunal did not think that there was a risk of persecution if he explored the possibility of internal relocation. Substantial grounds had not been shown and leave would be refused.
Reporter: E.F.
Judgment of Ms. Justice Mary Irvine, dated the 20th day of July, 2009
1. This is an application for leave to apply by way of judicial review seeking, inter alia, an order of certiorari of the decision of Elizabeth O'Brien sitting as the Refugee Appeals Tribunal dated 27 th August, 2007 to the effect that the applicant should not be declared a refugee.
2. The applicant herein is a 47 year old national of Pakistan who arrived in Ireland in or around 7 th December, 2005 and applied for asylum on 12 th December, 2005. He completed a Questionnaire and was duly interviewed by an authorised officer of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) on 23 rd January, 2006. On 27 th March, 2006, the ORAC authorised officer recommended that the applicant be refused a declaration of refugee status in a report prepared under s. 13(1) of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended). The decision of the Commissioner was appealed to the Tribunal and an oral hearing was held by Ms. Elizabeth O'Brien, member of the Tribunal, on 18 th July 2007. The Tribunal member affirmed the recommendation of the Refugee Appeals Commissioner in a decision dated 27 th August, 2007.
3. The applicant is Punjabi and by birth is a member of the minority Ahmadiyya Movement (an Islamic religious movement founded towards the end of 19 th century). The applicant's claim for refugee status is based on fears that should he return to Pakistan he will face persecution based on his membership of the minority Ahmadiyya Movement. There are numerous discriminatory laws and practices in existence in Pakistan restricting the practice of the applicant's religion and discriminating against members of the applicant's community.
4. The salient facts of the applicant's claim were set out in s. 3 of the Tribunal Member's report as follows:-
"The applicant explains that the group Khatem-e-Nabuwat lodged an F.I.R. against him on 15 th December 2003; he claims that they thought he was preaching his faith, someone had asked him a question about his faith and he converted him to the Ahmadiyaa Muslim faith. The applicant explained that he would answer questions about his faith when people asked; he claims that when he was dealing with people selling rice he would also talk to them about his faith. He claims that Khatem-e-Nabuwat came to learn about his activities.
The applicant explains that on 25 th March 2005 Mullah Abdul Haq arrived with some extremist Mullahs, they overheard his conversation and beat him up. He claims that some friends intervened, he went to the Police but the SHO of the Police Station refused to take a report and said that he was an infidel. On 15 th December 2003, an F.I.R. had been registered against the applicant, he claims that the Police raided his house and arrested him, he claims that he was at the Police Station for 10 days and released after he paid a bribe of 20,000 rupees. He claims that charges were laid against him under Section 295/C of the Criminal Code (Blasphemy Laws).
He claims that on 28 th September 2005, he was transporting rice, he was on his way to Faisalabad when a motorcar overtook and signalled them to stop. He claims that there were three men with Kalashnikovs; they asked for the applicant, the driver pointed him out. He was pulled out of the truck, verbally abused and forced into a car. He claims that in a wooded area they started verbally abusing him and beating him, he claims that these men were from Khatem-e-Nabuwat. They asked the applicant where Salman Ahmed was, the applicant states that they alleged that he had converted him. He claims that he was kept locked up overnight and the next morning a man with a long beard started beating him. The applicant states that he demanded that the applicant insult Merza Sahib, he refused to do this and the man continued to beat him. He claims that he was locked in again and later two men with Kalashnikovs came and told him to pay 500,000 rupees, or he would die. They handed him the phone so that he could contact his wife and arrange the ransom. The applicant explained that his wife contacted a non-Ahmadiyaa friend who arranged to pay the money; the applicant was released after three days.
The applicant states that two of his sons are at college, he is worried for them, they have been expelled from the college because they are Ahmadiyaa, the applicant explains that they went to the Government College of Commerce in Sargodha; they were expelled 6 to 7 months ago. The applicant explained that he decided to leave the country in 2005 after he started receiving threatening phone calls. He claims that he is the only son of his 80 year old mother, and yet she asked him to leave for his own safety."
5. Several documents were submitted by the applicant in support of his claim for refugee status, including a copy of the F.I.R. dated 15 th December 2003; a list of questions the applicant expected to be asked generally; a list of questions and answers the applicant expected to be asked about the Ahmadiyaa faith; a letter from the Ahmadiyaa Community in Ireland; and a letter from the Ahmadiyaa Community in the United Kingdom. The inferences drawn from some of those documents by the Tribunal member are at issue in this application in leave.
6. It appears to me that two central issues lie at the heart of the Tribunal's assessment of whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Pakistan, firstly whether he was a high-profile member of the Ahmadiyaa faith and secondly, whether internal relocation within Pakistan was a viable alternative to offset any real risk of persecution.
Was the applicant a high profile member of the Ahmadiyaa faith?
7. At the outset of her analysis of the applicant's claim, the Tribunal member referred to the decision of the United Kingdom Immigration Appeal Tribunal in K.K. [2005] UK IAT 00033. There the IAT found that for the "unexceptional Ahmadi" there is no real risk of persecutory treatment on a return to Pakistan merely by reason of being Ahmadi. The IAT defined the "unexceptional Ahmadi" "as, in relation to the present claimant, a man who is of the Ahmadi faith but:
(i) has no record of active preaching and is not a person in respect of whom any finding has been made that there is a real risk that he will preach on return;
(ii) has no particular profile in the Ahmadi faith;
(iii) has no history of persecution or other ill-treatment in Pakistan related to his Ahmadi faith; and
(iv) has no other particular feature to give any potential added risk to him (e.g. by being a convert to the Ahmadi faith).
8. The Tribunal member then went on to assess these factors in relation to the applicant's claim. She referred to his claim that he was involved in preaching and that he converted someone. However, she found that the objective evidence provided by the applicant did not support this claim:-
"The letters from the Ahmadiyaa Community do not make any reference to him being a preacher or someone who...
To continue reading
Request your trial