AZ (Risk, Ahmadi) Pakistan

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a citizen of Pakistan born on 1 January 1957, appealed the decision of an Adjudicator who dismissed his appeal against the Respondent's removal directions following the refusal of his asylum claim dated 11 July 2001. Leave to appeal was granted by the Tribunal on 26 February 2002 on the basis that the rationale for the Adjudicator's finding of sufficiency of protection for the Appellant, an Ahmadi, was not clear.

The Appellant's claim originated from his conversion to the Ahmadi faith at nearly 40 years of age, having grown up as a Muslim in the area of Gujranwala with his family. The Adjudicator accepted the genuineness of this conversion but examined whether the Appellant faced a real risk of persecution or ill-treatment contrary to his human rights upon return to Pakistan.

The Adjudicator found a real risk of ill-treatment within the Appellant's home village but concluded that this risk was not generalizable throughout Pakistan. She determined that there was sufficiency of protection available elsewhere in Pakistan through the legal system and authorities, despite acknowledged discrimination and religious intolerance against Ahmadis. The Adjudicator referenced relevant case law and background reports, concluding that the Pakistani government's efforts to curb religious extremism and protect minorities provided a level of protection sufficient to reject the Appellant's refugee claim.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant, as an Ahmadi convert, faces a real risk of persecution or ill-treatment amounting to a breach of human rights upon return to Pakistan.
2. Whether there exists sufficiency of protection within Pakistan, outside the Appellant’s home village, to safeguard the Appellant from such risks.
3. The applicability of the Refugee Convention to the Appellant’s claim based on religious discrimination against Ahmadis in Pakistan.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant’s representative cited extensive background material, including reports from CIPU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the US Department of State, highlighting ongoing discrimination and lack of effective protection for Ahmadis in Pakistan.
• It was argued that despite optimistic statements regarding religious tolerance, the controversial blasphemy laws remained unchanged and continued to pose a threat.
• The Appellant would not conceal his Ahmadi faith, increasing his vulnerability, especially in his home village.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent relied on the Adjudicator’s findings that the Pakistani government had taken significant steps to suppress religious extremism and protect minority groups, including Ahmadis.
• It was contended that the legal system and authorities provided sufficient protection outside the Appellant’s home village.
• The Respondent emphasized that being an Ahmadi alone did not constitute grounds for refugee status absent a real risk of persecution.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the Adjudicator’s findings in light of the evidence and background reports. It acknowledged the genuine conversion of the Appellant to the Ahmadi faith and the real risk of ill-treatment in his home village. However, the court accepted the Adjudicator’s reasoning that this localized risk did not extend to Pakistan generally.

The court gave weight to the Pakistani government’s efforts to curb religious extremism, including banning extremist groups and publicly condemning sectarian hatred. While recognizing incidents of societal violence and some police inaction, the court found no evidence that the state systematically failed to protect Ahmadis or encouraged sectarian violence.

The court considered the Appellant’s openness about his faith and the presence of substantial Ahmadi communities in Pakistan but concluded that sufficient protection was available elsewhere in the country. It agreed with the Adjudicator’s conclusion that the Appellant did not meet the threshold for refugee status under the Refugee Convention, as the risk of persecution was not real or likely on a general basis.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court upheld the Adjudicator’s decision that the Appellant was not entitled to refugee status and could be safely returned to Pakistan. The decision confirms that localized risk of ill-treatment does not necessarily amount to a breach of protection obligations if sufficient protection exists elsewhere in the country. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling follows established principles regarding sufficiency of state protection and the application of the Refugee Convention.