England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		31 October 2005

1. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: This applicant is aged 30 years. He is an Ahmadi, born in Lahore. He left Pakistan with a false passport on 5 September 2001. He flew to England on a commercial flight and claimed asylum on the day of his arrival. This was refused by the Secretary of State.
2. The applicant appealed to an adjudicator who dismissed his appeal on 11 June 2003. From there he appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The adjudicator's findings had been ambiguous as to whether the applicant had proselytised in Pakistan or merely preached to those already Ahmadis. The tribunal remitted the case back to the adjudicator to make findings on this issue. The adjudicator said:

"On the last occasion I found the appellant to be a credible witness and accepted the underlying account of the facts to be correct. Today, I accept the underlying account of his evidence to be true but I conclude he attempted to exaggerate his actions and make more of them than in fact is the case."

He said he had reached the following conclusions. I recite only those which are of specific relevance to this application:

"(a) The applicant's 'preaching' related mainly to handing out religious material to those who wished to receive it in his home district or in neighbouring areas. He also permitted persons who wished to come to his home to watch MTA, an Ahmadi religious television service. He accepted in cross-examination that none of the material given out was regarded as illegal in Pakistan nor were there any restrictions to prevent persons from watching MTA.

.....

(d) ..... following a religious meeting held in his home the local mullah and 5 companions broke into his home and abused him both verbally and physically. They accused him of attempting to convert an employee who remained with the appellant after the end of the meeting. This was someone the appellant had employed for about 6 months with whom he discussed religious matters but who had not converted to the Ahmadi faith.

(e) The appellant was injured and was off work for one week as a result. He did not report the incident to the police. It did not deter the appellant from continuing as before and he felt able to do so.

(f) In May 2001 when the appellant was absent from his home but his family were there persons forced their way into the house compound armed with sticks and knives and broke some windows. This led the appellant to leave home and move to Rawalpindi. The appellant asserts this was an attempt to kill him or do him serious harm."

The adjudicator rejected that assertion. When in Rawalpindi he did not suffer any persecution. The adjudicator went on to say:

"(i) The CIPU report confirms that Ahmadis are usually free to follow their own religious beliefs although they suffer some harassment and discrimination.

(j) ..... to the extent he was engaged in proselytising it was limited to providing material and facilities to those who already showed an interest. I am also satisfied that even this was only to a very limited extent and much less than the appellant would like me to believe. I am also satisfied that the appellant does not have a burning desire to proselytise to the extent he would put himself in danger regardless of the risk and that in the past he has declined to do so or to act in a way which would bring him into conflict with conventional Muslims if returned to Pakistan."

The adjudicator rejected the applicant's claim and made these additional findings. He appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal but the tribunal concluded that the adjudicator had not erred in law in making these findings.

3. This is in essence nothing more than disagreement with the findings of fact. It is not such as to found an appeal. There is no basis, in my judgment, for concluding that an appeal to this court would have a real prospect of success. Accordingly the application is refused.

Order: Application refused