Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/11327/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

At North Shields
on 9th September 2016
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
on 3rd October 2016

Before

DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL FARRELLY

Between

IH
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
And

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/269) I make an anonymity order. Unless the Upper Tribunal or a Court directs otherwise, no report of these proceedings or any form of publication thereof shall directly or indirectly identify the original Appellant. This direction applies to, amongst others, all parties. Any failure to comply with this direction could give rise to contempt of court proceedings.

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Tobin instructed by Kanaga Solicitors.
For the Respondent: Mr McVeety, Home Office Presenting Officer.

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The appellant is a national of Pakistan born on 14 January 1942. He appeals against a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge I.S. Lamb who dismissed his appeal against removal on asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights grounds.
2. He was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal by Upper Tribunal Judge Frances on 2 August 2016. Judge Lamb had found the appellant credible and accepted he had a well-founded fear of persecution. However his claim failed on the basis there was sufficiency of protection in Pakistan. The judge also found relocation was not an option given his age and lack of support. It was arguable that the judge erred in law in concluding there was no evidence to suggest that the police were unwilling or unable to protect the appellant.
3. The appellant's son-in-law, Syed Kamal Qaiser Zaidi (hereinafter referred to as `Kamal') had made an earlier claim to asylum. This was on the basis he faced persecution by reason of religion. His claim was that he was of the Shia branch of Islam and had encountered problems after preaching against an extremist Sunni group.
4. The appellant's claim was that in order to assist Kamil in his asylum claim he had repeatedly gone to the police in Pakistan seeking corroboration of complaints his son-in-law had made. He said the police were uncooperative and rude and he believed this was because many where Sunni. Shortly afterwards he was knocked off his motorbike and he believes the police informed the extremist that he was making enquiries. He then referred incidents at his home when men arrived and he subsequently reported this to the police.
The First tier Tribunal
5. At paragraph 64 First-tier Tribunal Judge I.S. Lamb accepted that the appellant came to the United Kingdom as he had been attacked because he was a Shia Muslim and an extremist Sunni group had discovered he was trying to find evidence to support his son-in-law Kamal. Consequently the judge concluded he had a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of religion.
6. However, at paragraph 66 the judge was not satisfied to the low standard of proof applicable that he was without protection in Pakistan. The judge said there was no evidence on which such a finding could be made, pointing out that the organisation had been prescribed and held there was no prospect of it being supported or abetted by the police. The judge was aware that a different conclusion had been reached in the appeal of Kamal but stated that this depended on the evidence in each case.
The Upper Tribunal
7. At hearing I was referred to references in the appellant's asylum interview of police involvement. This was indicative of protection being afforded. In response the appellant's representative said the police were slow to act unless the appellant engage someone of influence. It was said that the complaints made were not followed up by the police.
8. There is a statement from the appellant which was used in his son in law's appeal where he referred to an incident back in 2003 when he claims an attempt was made to kidnap his son-in-law. He said the police were called and saved him and they then stationed two guards at his house. However the house was then attacked by men with guns, the police called for support, and the men ran away.
9. The reasons for refusal letter comments on the claims of police inactivity. There is detailed coverage from paragraph 48 through to 64 about sufficiency of protection and the country guidance. Police corruption is acknowledged but this did not demonstrate an institutionalised unwillingness to afford protection. Reference was made to past willingness on the part of the police to act.
10. Judge Lamb sets out in detail the claim; the refusal; the decision in his son-in-law's claim and provides a summary of law including reference to sufficiency of protection. The judge made clear findings on the facts and was prepared to accept the appellant's claim of persecution.
11. The reference in paragraphs 66 and 67 to sufficiency of protection is not particularly detailed. However, the decision has to be looked at in totality including the references to the material before the judge. The judge acknowledged the conclusion in relation to sufficiency of protection differed from that found in the appeal of the appellant's son-in-law. However the judge correctly points out that this issue is fact sensitive and it has to be borne in mind that on the claim it was the appellant son-in-law's activities which primarily brought about the difficulties. The appellant had remained in Pakistan for many years and his difficulties only arose when he started making enquiries. This individualised approach accords with the country guidance.
12. In conclusion, when I consider the decision in the round; the country guidance decision of AW (sufficiency of protection) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 31 and the country information referred to I do not find a material error of law. Consequently, the decision dismissing the appeal shall stand.
Decision.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the appellant shall stand.

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Farrelly
3rd October 2016