MM (Ahmadi, Internal Relocation) Pakistan

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a national of Pakistan and member of the Ahmadi sect, appealed against a decision by the Secretary of State ordering removal after refusal of asylum. The Adjudicator dismissed the appeal, finding that although the Appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution in his home area of Lahore from a group of Muslim extremists known as Khatme Nabuwat, he had a viable internal relocation alternative in Rabwah (Chenab Nagar), where he and his family could live safely. The Appellant had previously relocated within Lahore to evade persecution and intended to devote his son to the Ahmadi faith. The Adjudicator also dismissed the Appellant's human rights claims under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Appellant appealed with leave of the Tribunal, which ultimately dismissed the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant had a viable internal relocation alternative within Pakistan, specifically Rabwah, that would allow him to avoid persecution.
2. Whether the removal of the Appellant would violate his human rights under Articles 3, 8, and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Adjudicator erred in finding Rabwah as a viable internal relocation alternative since the same extremist group targeted the Appellant there.
• The Adjudicator failed to consider undue hardship beyond safety concerns.
• Background evidence, including the April 2002 CIPU report and the 2001 US State Department report, demonstrated that Rabwah was not safe and that state protection was ineffective or complicit in violence against Ahmadis.
• The situation was analogous to cases of domestic violence victims where internal relocation was not viable.
• There were plans to "Muslimise" Rabwah through property acquisition and employment discrimination against Ahmadis.
• The Adjudicator wrongly characterized the Appellant as not actively proselytising his faith, which affected the risk assessment.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Appellant had not actively proselytised according to his own evidence.
• Recent political developments in Pakistan post-September 11 meant the authorities would not condone extremist actions regardless of the target.
• There had been police arrests following attacks on Ahmadi mosques, indicating some level of state protection.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal accepted that the Adjudicator’s treatment of internal relocation was incomplete, noting that viability requires the alternative location to be both safe and not unduly harsh. However, the Tribunal considered the matter afresh with additional evidence, including Amnesty International reports. It concluded that Rabwah generally is safe for Ahmadis, despite occasional violence and discrimination, as a significant Ahmadi population lives there with relative normality.

Regarding the Appellant’s specific situation, the Tribunal acknowledged a real risk of targeting by the extremist group Khatme Nabuwat due to his proselytising activities and intention to devote his son to the Ahmadi faith. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found the protection available in Rabwah to be markedly better than in Lahore, as local authorities include members of the Ahmadi faith and are more capable and willing to provide effective protection.

The Tribunal noted that incidents of violence in Rabwah are not large-scale or endemic and that the authorities are generally able to protect local Ahmadis. It emphasized that protection must be assessed locally, not only nationally, and found that local protection in Rabwah would be effective.

On the issue of undue hardship, the Tribunal found no evidence that the Appellant or his family would face conditions in Rabwah that were unduly harsh beyond potential targeting and discrimination, which the Appellant could manage given his self-employment experience and absence of health or other special needs.

Regarding human rights claims, the Tribunal agreed with the Adjudicator that Article 3 claims failed for the same reasons as the asylum claim, and that there was no violation of Article 9 as the Appellant would be free to manifest his religion in Rabwah. For Article 8, the Tribunal found no disproportionate interference with family and private life since the Appellant would return with his close family unit and had limited ties in the UK.

Holding and Implications

The Tribunal DISMISSED the appeal on both asylum and human rights grounds.

The decision confirms that internal relocation within a country can be a viable alternative even when some risk and discrimination persist, provided effective local protection exists and conditions are not unduly harsh. The ruling underscores the importance of assessing protection on a local basis rather than assuming national conditions apply uniformly. No new precedent was set beyond the application of established principles to the facts of this case.