QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF HUSSAIN||Claimant|
|SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT||Defendant|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr A Payne (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Crown Copyright ©
"Our client has instructed us that his wife and five children live in Germany who have claimed asylum there since June 1993. He also claimed asylum there but his case was refused and he was subject to removal. And left in fear voluntarily to Pakistan, tried there to establish but was attacked and persecuted. He then arrived in the UK and claimed asylum on 17th August 2003. His previous representatives Thompson & Co allegedly prepared his story and misled him to hide the facts. He has therefore no-one in Pakistan to return to and his life is at great risk there."
It is obvious, therefore, that the fresh representations said to amount to a fresh claim which have been before the Secretary of State, and now which are before this court, flatly contradict substantial elements of the account which was pursued for a number of years, first to the Adjudicator then to the Tribunal in the application for leave to appeal, and thereafter until he was detained with a view to removal.
"Contrary to what is said in KM (Pakistan) [reference given], MM (Pakistan) [reference given], KK (Pakistan) [reference given], MC (Pakistan) [reference given], and AZ (Pakistan) [reference given], Rabwah does not constitute a safe haven for any Ahmadi at risk of persecution elsewhere in Pakistan and should not, without more, be treated as an appropriate place of internal relocation."
(i) In relation to Ahmadis who have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home area, Rabwah:
(a) should not be presumed to provide a viable internal flight alternative;
(b) may provide a viable internal flight alternative for Ahmadis who have family in Rabwah; and
(ii) The up-to-date objective evidence indicates that the incidence of actual harm to Ahmadis is not high."
In this case the Secretary of State, as I have indicated, was, in my judgment, entitled to conclude that there was no well-founded fear of persecution and no basis for concluding that he would be at risk if returned to Pakistan.