ASO (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 1282
WAS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
26 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 894
Court of Appeal
A man from Pakistan said he was in danger because of his political beliefs and activities. A court said the first court didn't properly look at whether he was in danger, so they sent the case back to be looked at again.
Key Facts
- •The appellant (A) appealed a UT determination refusing his protection claim based on his perceived political opinion and affiliation with the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM).
- •A claimed membership in MQM since 2009, with increased involvement after 2016.
- •The UT considered A's credibility issues and the risk to MQM-L supporters in Pakistan, relying heavily on expert testimony.
- •The UT found A's evidence exaggerated and lacked sufficient evidence of A's activities coming to the attention of Pakistani authorities.
- •The Court of Appeal considered whether the UT applied the correct legal standard and properly assessed the risk to A.
Legal Principles
A claimant must demonstrate a real risk of persecution, not merely that they would be persecuted.
Case Law
If a claimant is a genuine supporter of a group facing persecution, they cannot be expected to hide their affiliation to avoid persecution.
HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31
Lack of specific evidence of surveillance is not fatal to a protection claim, particularly considering advancements in surveillance technology.
YB (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 360
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on both grounds.
The UT applied too high a standard of proof and failed to adequately consider the possibility that A's activities, even if exaggerated, could reasonably be perceived to attract the attention of Pakistani authorities, putting him at risk. The UT also inconsistently assessed the genuineness of A's affiliation with MQM, contradicting earlier findings.
The case was remitted to the UT for reconsideration.
The Court deemed it appropriate for a specialist fact-finder to reassess the evidence given the complexities and inconsistencies in the case.
Similar Cases
MAH (Egypt) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 216
KG (Turkey) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2022] EWCA Civ 1578
JCK (Botswana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] UKUT 100 (IAC)
LA (Albania), R (on the application of) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber)
[2023] EWCA Civ 1337