QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ASIF NASEER||(CLAIMANT)|
|SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT||(DEFENDANT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MISS SAMANTHA BROADFOOT (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Crown Copyright ©
"The FIR that the appellant claimed had been issued on the report of the Khatme Nabuwaat Mullahs was not shown to the respondent or to me. The appellant will no doubt say that it is not possible to obtain copies of FIRs that have been issued but the fact is that in very many cases involving Ahmadis such documents have been presented to me and have formed an important part of the case based on discrimination amounting to persecution."
"As I have [rejected] the appellant's entire account of events, I must also find that it was not occasioned by the number of times on which he said he had preached (using this word in the sense that I further elucidated it above) to friends of his or those who were interested or had become interested in the Ahmadi faith. I do not believe that he did any of these things. I also reject his account of his escape [from the house in January 2004]. I agree with the respondent in this regard and I do not think that the appellant has satisfactorily answered the points made against him in his statement prepared for the appeal. I also reject his account of events that occurred in Lahore [that was recognition by his uncle]. I think this is a fabrication to support an assertion that he endeavoured to relocate elsewhere in Pakistan and was not able to do so.
41. My overall conclusion is that this entire account of events is a fabrication and the appellant has not had any more difficulty in Pakistan than has any other Ahmadi who might on occasion have spoken to friends about his religious beliefs. I do not take such activity to amount to the type of public preaching that would excite the interest of Khatme Nabuwaat extremists. I entirely accept that such extremists exist and are on the lookout for Ahmadis who proselytise in public. I find that the appellant has never done so."
"This is to confirm that the person whose details are set out below is an Ahmadi by birth and a bona fide member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. According to the information received from our headquarters in Pakistan his participation in congregational prayers, conduct and contact with the Jamaat (branch) were good and he used to take part actively in its activities. He served in our Sangla Hill-Pakistan branch as
1. an Assistant Guide for Youngsters from 2002 to 2004 and
2. an Organiser for General Fitness Programmes.
He used to perform his duties efficiently during preaching tours conducted by the in charge of the local area."
"In September 2002, I was appointed as member of the Dai Allah group (a preaching group) of Khudam-ul-Ahmadiyya (a youth organisation). To this end, [we] used to conduct free medical camps and then in the follow up we (the members of the preaching group) visited the same area."
"353. When a human rights or asylum claim has been refused and any appeal relating to that claim is no longer pending, the decision maker will consider any further submissions and, if rejected, will then determine whether they amount to a fresh claim. The submissions will amount to a fresh claim if they are significantly different from the material that has previously been considered. The submissions will only be significantly different if the content:
(i) had not already been considered; and
(ii) taken together with the previously considered material, created a realistic prospect of success, notwithstanding its rejection."
"31. It is trite immigration and asylum law that we must not judge what is or is not likely to happen in other countries by reference to our perception of what is normal within the United Kingdom. The principle applies as much to documents as to any other form of evidence. We know from experience and country information that there are countries where it is easy and often relatively inexpensive to obtain 'forged' documents. Some of them are false in that they are not made by whoever purports to be the author and the information they contain is wholly or partially untrue. Some are 'genuine' to the extent that they emanate from a proper source, in the proper form, on the proper paper, with the proper seals, but the information they contain is wholly or partially untrue. Examples are birth, death and marriage certificates from certain countries, which can be obtained from the proper source for a 'fee', but contain information which is wholly or partially untrue. The permutations of truth, untruth, validity and 'genuineness' are enormous. At its simplest we need to differentiate between form and content; that is whether a document is properly issued by the purported author and whether the contents are true. They are separate questions. It is a dangerous oversimplification merely to ask whether a document is 'forged' or even 'not genuine'. It is necessary to shake off any preconception that official looking documents are genuine, based on experience of documents in the United Kingdom, and to approach them with an open mind.
It is to be noted that the case of Tanveer Ahmed in fact concerned an FIR and an arrest warrant from Pakistan.
"I think it would be difficult to justify an approach which enabled the Secretary of State to find a matter of fact against a new claim which otherwise would succeed because the material had not already been considered; and there was good reason, as it happens in this case, for that, because it did not exist until after the relevant decision of the adjudicator."
"Of course, if it is intrinsically incredible, or if when one looks at the whole of the case, it is possible to say that no person could reasonably believe this evidence, it should be rejected. If it is, on the face of it, credible and if, despite the feeling that it might be disbelieved, it is not possible to say that it could not reasonably be believed, then, as it seems to me, the decision ought to be based upon that state of affairs. The Secretary of State would be wrong to say 'I don't believe it and therefore I am not going to regard this as a fresh claim'."