AB v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an international-protection claim based on Ahmadi faith, the claimant must establish a genuinely held and particularly important wish to manifest the faith openly in Pakistan in a way prohibited by law. A claimant who cannot establish that intention will generally not be at real risk merely as an Ahmadi.

Where credibility is in issue, an Ahmadiyya Association UK letter gains weight when it gives specific, verifiable information about the claimant’s activities, their sources and the records relied on. Membership of a prominent Ahmadi family does not itself establish a real risk of persecution without credible evidence of a personal profile or targeting.

The appellant, an Ahmadi man with indefinite leave to remain, was liable to automatic deportation after his conviction for robbery. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal against the deportation decision.

Upper Tribunal Judge Goldstein found a material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s treatment of international protection, including the risk arising from the appellant’s Ahmadi faith and family background. The preserved adverse credibility findings remained in place. The Upper Tribunal re-made the international-protection decision after hearing further evidence about the appellant’s religious activities, family business and his mother’s circumstances.

The principal issues were whether he would openly manifest his Ahmadi faith on return to Pakistan, whether his family profile created a separate risk, and whether deportation would breach Article 8.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision only insofar as it concerned international protection, and re-made that part by dismissing the asylum and Article 3 claims. The appellant was not entitled to humanitarian protection. The First-tier Tribunal’s Article 8 conclusion remained undisturbed.

2. Applying the country guidance in MN and others (Ahmadis – country conditions – risk) Pakistan CG [2012] UKUT 00389 (IAC), protection depends on whether open manifestation prohibited by Pakistani law is genuinely intended and of particular importance to the claimant’s religious identity. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not shown that he would genuinely wish to engage in preaching or comparable proselytising in Pakistan.

3. The appellant’s own evidence of religious observance was inconsistent and unreliable. His claimed activities were largely undertaken under mentoring and instruction. The supporting letter from the Ahmadiyya Association UK was given little weight because it lacked a clear evidential basis, contained assertions not corroborated by the appellant, and did not explain how the information had been obtained or verified.

4. Where credibility is material, a letter from the Association is more likely to carry weight if it supplies specific information about United Kingdom activities, identifies the source and basis of that information, and explains any relevant records. The Tribunal did not doubt that the appellant was an Ahmadi; the issue was the extent and likely continuation of his personal religious observance.

5. The appellant’s father’s prominence and death in an indiscriminate mosque attack did not establish a separate risk. The appellant’s family continued openly to conduct business and charitable activities in Pakistan, and there was no credible evidence of threats or of the appellant having a personal profile that would cause non-state actors to target him.

6. There was no error in the First-tier Tribunal’s Article 8 assessment. The additional passage of time without further offending did not require a different proportionality conclusion. In any event, the Upper Tribunal would have found deportation proportionate.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): An error of law was found in the First-tier Tribunal’s international-protection decision. That part was set aside and re-made by dismissing the asylum and Article 3 claims. The Article 8 decision was not set aside.
• First-tier Tribunal: The appeal against the automatic-deportation decision was dismissed. Findings at paragraphs 35–38, including adverse credibility findings, were preserved.