MA (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum appeal concerning internal relocation, the court may assume disputed evidence in the appellant’s favour where the appeal can be resolved without deciding the credibility challenge. The safety and reasonableness of relocation must be assessed by reference to the individual’s particular risk and its causes. A finding that relocation to Rabwah would not be unduly harsh may remain sustainable where the appellant previously lived there for three years without incident, earlier persecution occurred before that residence, later events arose elsewhere, and there is no evidence that a low-profile role materially increased the risk in Rabwah.

The appellant, a Pakistani citizen and Ahmadi, claimed asylum in the United Kingdom after alleging attacks, dismissal from the police force for preaching, and a later threat by Khatme Nabuwwat supporters. His asylum claim was refused. An immigration adjudicator dismissed his appeal, making adverse credibility findings but accepting that he had lived in Rabwah for three years without serious problems.

On reconsideration, the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal restored the original decision on 5 September 2007. The appeal concerned whether fresh evidence undermined the credibility findings and, assuming the appellant’s account was credible, whether the conclusion that he could safely return to Rabwah was sustainable.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Thomas gave the leading judgment. Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Maurice Kay agreed.

1. It was unnecessary to decide whether the Senior Immigration Judge had erred in treating the fresh evidence—the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association letter and the 1997 police report—as insufficient to displace the original credibility findings. The court could assume that the appellant’s account was credible and determine whether the relocation conclusion remained sustainable on that basis.
2. The issue was whether the finding that it would not be unduly harsh to expect the appellant to live in Rabwah was sustainable. The court applied the approach identified in SSHD v IA (Pakistan) [2008] EWCA Civ 580, requiring attention to the particular risk faced by the individual Ahmadi and the reasons for it. The court also considered the particular risks identified in MJ and ZM (Ahmadis—risk) Pakistan CG [2008] UKAIT 00033.
3. On the assumed evidence, the appellant had lived in Rabwah for three years. The 1997 incident occurred before that period and did not show that Rabwah was unsafe. The 2002 incident followed conversions and occurred in Gujranwala, a different location; the evidence did not show that it altered the risk in Rabwah.
4. The appellant’s activities had been low-profile. Nothing in the association’s letter showed that his role as a guide materially changed his position or connected the later Gujranwala incident to Rabwah. The conclusion that no adverse consequences were shown to be likely on return to Rabwah was therefore sustainable.

Appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 4 December 2008, dismissed the appeal.
• Asylum & Immigration Tribunal: On 5 September 2007, Senior Immigration Judge Eshun decided that the original immigration adjudicator’s decision should stand.
• Immigration adjudicator: Dismissed the appellant’s appeal against refusal of asylum, making adverse credibility findings and concluding that relocation to Rabwah would not be unduly harsh.