Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001151
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/59929/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 19th of June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BULPITT

Between

HJ
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Eaton, Counsel instructed by Thompson & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr M Pavar, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 8 May 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant and his family are granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant, his wife or his children. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is thirty two years old and a citizen of Pakistan who was born and raised in Lahore. He entered the United Kingdom on 9 February 2023 with his wife and son having been granted visas to visit for a holiday. On arrival he immediately claimed asylum, saying he feared persecution in Pakistan because of his religion, as a Shia Muslim. While his claim was being considered, the appellant’s second son was born.

2. The respondent refused the appellant’s claim on 26 March 2024. The appellant appealed against that decision to the First-tier Tribunal and his appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Wolfson (the Judge) on 9 December 2025. On 6 January 2026 the Judge issued a decision dismissing the appeal and it is against that decision that the appellant now appeals to this Tribunal, having been granted permission to do so by another First-tier Tribunal Judge.

3. The appellant’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was a protection appeal and he did not pursue a claim that his removal to Pakistan would be incompatible with his Article 8 Convention right to respect for his private and family life.

4. The First-tier Tribunal made an anonymity direction prohibiting the publication of any information that might lead to the identification of the appellant or his family. Because this is a protection appeal, I maintain that order lest anything said or done in these proceedings gives rise to a risk to the appellant or his family in Pakistan.

The Appellant’s Claim

5. The appellant said he had an active role providing security at his local Shia Mosque in Lahore and that he was a member of the Majlis Wahdaht e Muslimeen (MWM), a political party which represents Shia interests. He said that this led to him being threatened and attacked by Sunni extremists who looked like members of the Taliban or an extremist groups such as the Sipah-e-Sahaba (SSP). He described an occasion in 2017 when a man fired a gun at him and his brother, injuring his brother and an occasion in 2018 when his factory was set alight during the night. He said that in 2020 he was threatened by people who demanded he provide information about Shia processions. In 2021 he said he and his wife and son were repeatedly attacked, including one occasion when his the back of his neck was cut by one of the attackers. There was a further attack in 2022 in which he was cut on the ribs with a knife and was threatened that if he did not provide information, his family would be harmed. The appellant said that he told the police about these incidents but they ignored the complaints he was making and instead told him to flee the country.

6. The appellant said that he and his wife decided to leave the country but told no-one about their plans other than his brother. He said they stayed with his sisters outside of Lahore until getting the necessary visa and left Pakistan in February 2023. Whilst in the United Kingdom he said that he has attended his local mosque but has not continued activities with the MWM. The appellant claimed that he would not be able to pursue his religion freely in Pakistan, would not receive sufficient protection from the Sunni extremists who had been threatening him and could not relocate within Pakistan to avoid persecution because Shias are not accepted throughout the country.

The Respondent’s Decision

7. The respondent accepted that the appellant is a Shia Muslim and that he had volunteered at his mosque. The respondent did not accept the appellant’s account of being threatened and attacked by extremists. In any event the respondent concluded that the appellant would be able to receive sufficient protection in Pakistan and could relocate to another city in Pakistan to avoid persecution.

The Judge’s Decision

8. The Judge heard evidence from the appellant and his wife, and submissions from the parties before making his decision. At [16] the Judge found that the appellant’s account of involvement with MWM and being attacked on several occasions was likely to be true. At [20] the Judge concluded that a combination of systemic issues with the Pakistani police system and discrimination against Shia Muslims meant the appellant would be unlikely to receive sufficient protection from a repeat of those attacks in his home area in Lahore. At [21] however the Judge concluded that the appellant could avoid persecution by relocating within Pakistan and that it would be reasonable for him to do so along with his wife and children. Accordingly the Judge dismissed the appeal.

The Error of Law.

9. Having heard submissions from both Mr Eaton and Mr Parvar I announced my decision that the Judge’s finding at [21] that the appellant could avoid persecution by relocating was inadequately reasoned and therefore involved an error of law. I now explain my reasons for that conclusion.

10. Paragraph [21] of the Judge’s decision is lengthy and mixes a record of the evidence with findings made by the Judge. The paragraph begins with an identification that the issue under consideration is whether the appellant could relocate to avoid future persecution. It then sets out evidence relevant to that issue including (i) evidence from the Country Policy Information Note Pakistan: Internal Relocation April 2023 that there is in general freedom of movement within Pakistan, (ii) oral evidence from the appellant and his wife that, contrary to an indication in his witness statement, the appellant had “been able to live openly as a Shia Muslim, alongside Sunni Muslims” while living with his two sisters prior to leaving Pakistan, (iii) the appellant’s evidence that those he fears have stronghold all over Pakistan, which the Judge described as generic and unsupported, (iv) evidence from a police officer in Lahore that having complained to the police about religiously motivated attacks the appellant had two options, either not to pursue the matter or to leave the area for his safety, and (v) evidence of Dr Bennet-Jones a country expert, that the SSP has supporters in the state apparatus and is tolerated by the state, and that moving away from Lahore would make the appellant safer but not eliminate the risk he faces, which may depend on the extent of his involvement in the Shia community.

11. The Judge then states his conclusion that relocation is reasonable and his explanation for that conclusion in the following concluding lines to paragraph [21]:

…..The appellant has confirmed that he did not face any attacks or discrimination during the time that he was outside Lahore. He was able to safely relocate within Pakistan prior to his departure. He had not received any further threats since leaving Lahore. Even if he continued to be involved in the Shia community on return to Pakistan (other than Lahore), there is no evidence that the SSP or others are interested in finding him and/or pursuing him. I find that relocation is reasonable in light of the appellant’s family life (taking into account the appellant’s wife’s medical history and the fact that he has two children), background, education and previous employment history.

12. In this passage the Judge provides two explanations for his conclusion that the appellant could reasonably relocate within Pakistan: (1) the fact that the appellant had been able to do so prior to his departure and (2) there is no evidence that the SSP or others are interested in finding him. I agree with Mr Eaton’s submission that these explanations are inadequate to enable the appellant to understand why the Judge reached the conclusion he did on the evidence presented. I agree with the submission that the six week period during which the appellant was living with his two sisters and preparing to flee to the United Kingdom provided an insufficient basis for the conclusion that the appellant would not face persecution in the future. Whilst it is clear from the Judge’s decision that the appellant’s oral evidence included an acceptance that he was able to live openly as a Shia Muslim during those six weeks, it is in my judgment not possible to draw the a conclusion from that fact alone that the appellant would be able to live openly as a Shia Muslim elsewhere in Pakistan in the future. As Mr Eaton identified, the evidence before the Judge was that the six weeks when he was living with his sisters came at a time when the appellant had told his persecutors that he would agree to their demands and requested some time before he did so. A comparison between the six weeks with his sisters and the appellant’s future on return was in these circumstances as Mr Eaton submitted like comparing apples with pears.

13. The Judge’s finding that during those six weeks the appellant was able to live openly as a Shia Muslim among Sunni Muslims was plainly relevant to his assessment of whether the appellant would be at risk if he were to relocate to a different city in Pakistan. Similarly, the Judge’s finding that there was no evidence that those who threatened the appellant in the past were interested in pursuing him in the future was plainly relevant to the Judge’s assessment of risk, as was the Judge’s assessment that the appellant’s claim his persecutors have a stronghold across Pakistan is generic and unsupported. The Judge was however required having made those findings to undertake an assessment of risk to the appellant which took account of the fact that the appellant will not behave in the way as he did during the six weeks with his sisters indefinitely. This would involve an assessment of the treatment the appellant could reasonably expect returning to a different area of Pakistan and working as security to a Shia mosque or for the MWM. It was an assessment that needed to consider the evidence of Dr Bennet-Jones and also the Country Policy Information Note Pakistan: Shia Muslims July 2021 which was part of the evidence presented.

14. The failure by the Judge to adequately explain why he found the appellant would not be at risk in a different part of Pakistan was an error of law such that the Judge’s decision must be set aside. As I explained during the hearing however, the Judge’s findings of fact did not involve an error of law and can be preserved. Remaking the decision in respect of the appeal therefore requires an assessment of the risk of the appellant being persecuted in another part of Pakistan as a result of him living openly as a Shia Muslim. Given that no further fact finding was required, I indicated that I would hear submissions from the parties and undertake such an assessment in order to remake the decision in respect of the appellant’s appeal.

Remaking the decision

15. Having preserved the findings made by the Judge, the factual basis for assessing the risk to the appellant of persecution for reason of his religion if he were to relocate to a different part of Pakistan is as follows: The appellant is a Shia Muslim and would live openly as such on his return to Pakistan. This is likely to involve him participating in Shia activities in the future in a similar way to how he did prior to leaving Pakistan e.g. by providing security for his local mosque and for MWM rallies. The appellant’s previous activities in Lahore led to him being attacked and threatened by Sunni militants who look like the Taliban or members of the SSP. He would not be able to get adequate protection from this group in his home area of Lahore. There is however no evidence of his persecutors retaining an ongoing interest in him during the three years that have passed since he left Pakistan. Whilst there is evidence that the SSP have close links with the state, there is no support for the appellant’s assertion that his particular prior persecutors have a stronghold across Pakistan.

Evidence in the CPIN: Pakistan Shia Muslims

16. In part 2.4 of the CPIN it is estimated that out of a population of 208 million people there are between 20 – 40 million Shia Muslims in Pakistan who are in general freely permitted to practise their faith. Blasphemy laws which carry severe penalties have been used against Shia Muslims but the risk of being accused and charged with blasphemy is in general very small. Whilst there are reports of enforced disappearances of Shia men suspected of being recruited by Iran, Shia Muslims are in general unlikely to be subject to treatment or discrimination by the state that is sufficiently serious to amount to persecution.

17. Although sectarian violence has significantly decreased in Pakistan since 2013, the CPIN records at 2.4.10 that Shias continue to face security threats from extremist groups including the SSP with 815 people described as Shia being murdered because of their religion between 2013 and 2018. At 2.4.13 the CPIN records that although there have been sporadic targeted attacks against Shia Muslims, the Shia population is in general unlikely to be subject to treatment sufficiently serious to amount to persecution.

18. At 2.6.3 the CPIN records that the Shia population is spread across Pakistan with large Shia communities in major urban centres, with many communities integrated such that in general there are parts of the country where a person could relocate. At 3.1.3 the CPIN states that Shia are the majority in the autonomous region of Gilgit-Balistan. At 3.1.5 it is noted that there are huge localities in Karachi which are dominated by Shias such as Ancholi, Jaffer-e-Tayyar and Rizvia.

19. In relation to sectarian violence the CPIN records at 6.2.2 that Shia continue to face a threat from anti-Shia militia such as the SSP. At 6.2.8 it is reported that while there is undeniably persecution of Shias on the ground in Pakistan, it is not the same everywhere and persecution does not exist in all regions of Pakistan. At 6.2.9 it is reported that Lahore is one of the worst cities for Shias because militant groups are also present and that Karachi is one of the cities with the worst persecution but that the situation in other cities including Islamabad is not as bad where almost nothing happens because it is very well policed.

Evidence of Dr Bennet-Jones

20. At (10] Dr Bennet-Jones records that Shia Muslims make up 15-20% of the population in Pakistan. At [12] he records statistics for anti Shia violence in Pakistan including in 2020 there were 0 killed or injured, in 2021 1 killed and 20 injured, in 2022 63 killed and 194 injured and in 2023 14 killed and 15 injured. At [15] he refers to the cyclical nature of sectarian violence in Pakistan with factors such as Saudi or Iranian state sponsorship affecting the level of violence. Dr Bennet-Jones describes the Taliban as a catch all term used to refer to various violent jihadist groups including groups such as the SSP. He explains that following victory of the Taliban in Afghanistan the Pakistani Taliban can be seen moving around parts of the north west of Pakistan freely. Dr Bennet-Jones describes how the SSP actively promotes sectarian violence particularly in the area around Lahore. He describes reports of the SSP having 3,000 – 6,000 people who use violence on its behalf primarily in the Punjab. With regards relocation Dr Bennet-Jones describes how residents of major cities tend to be segregated into districts based on ethnic or religious affiliation. He suggests that the SSP has supporters in the state apparatus who could access information stored about people who move into an area. He concludes that “moving away from Lahore would make [the appellant] safer but not eliminate the risk he faces”.

Conclusions on risk in a different area of Pakistan

21. The Judge’s preserved findings include the finding that there is no evidence that the appellant’s previous persecutors are interested in finding or pursuing him. . Mr Eaton argued that the group’s lack of interest in the appellant can be explained by the appellant’s evidence that he told the group that he will give them what they want, before fleeing Pakistan. Mr Eaton argued that if the appellant were to return to Pakistan the interest in him from the group would likewise return While this may well be true if the appellant were to return to the same area in Lahore, it does not support the assertion that the group would have the will or the ability to track the appellant down if he were to return elsewhere in Pakistan. The group do not appear to have done anything to track down the appellant during the last three years but instead have given every impression that they are satisfied with having driven him from the area in Lahore where he had been living. There is no reason to conclude that they would resurrect an interest in the appellant now and no evidence to support such a conclusion. Instead the evidence indicates that the interest of the group in the appellant ended when he left the area.

22. The Judge also found that only generic and unsupported evidence had been adduced to support the appellant’s claim that those who threatened him have a stronghold all over Pakistan. That finding reflects the very vague evidence from the appellant about the identity of those who threatened him and attacked him. In his asylum interview he described them as the Taliban, clarifying in his later statement that they “resembled Taliban like groups” such as the SSP. The appellant has never said that the people who attacked him and threatened him were members of the SSP or that they were part of a nationwide organisation, only that they looked like a Taliban-like group. In this context the evidence about the SSP’s links to the state and ability to infiltrate relevant databases is of little relevance. The Judge was evidently unpersuaded by the suggestion that those who threatened the appellant were part of a group whose influence extended across Pakistan, finding that the appellant’s evidence to that effect generic and unsupported. On the basis of the Judge’s preserved findings and in the light of the appellant’s vague evidence, I am not persuaded that those who threatened the appellant four years ago are part of a nationwide group who will be able to identify and locate the appellant in a new area four years later. I conclude that the appellant could relocate to another area of Pakistan without those who threatened him in the past becoming aware. I am satisfied that the people who persecuted the appellant in the past would not pose a risk to the appellant if he were to relocate now to a different area of Pakistan.

23. The remaining question, which was not adequately answered by the Judge, is whether the appellant would face a real risk of persecution from a similar group of people violently opposed to the Shia religion and those who practice it, if he were to relocate to a different part of Pakistan and resume his support for Shia religious events, including MWM organised rallies, in that area.

24. On the evidence adduced in the CPIN and the report of Dr Bennet-Jones, I conclude that it is not reasonably likely he would face such a risk. The statistics from both the CPIN and Dr Bennet-Jones indicate that although there is cyclical sectarian violence, the vast majority of the very large Shia population in Pakistan are able to live and worship freely without facing persecution. The unchallenged evidence in the CPIN included the fact that in areas such as the autonomous region of Gilgit-Balistan, Shias are in the majority and there is no evidence that a Shia openly worshipping and supporting Shia rallies in those areas would face persecution. Likewise the evidence is that in Islamabad sectarian violence is very well policed, there are well-integrated communities and there are also enclaves where Shia worshippers are in the majority. The evidence does not establish that a person openly pursuing the Shia religion in those areas would face a real risk of persecution by anti-Shia militia.

25. I find therefore that there are parts of Pakistan to which the appellant could relocate without facing a real risk of persecution by anti-Shia militia notwithstanding the fact the appellant would be open about his religion and involve himself in Shia festivals as he did in the past. I do not consider this conclusion to be inconsistent with the general conclusion reached by Dr Bennet-Jones that relocation would “reduce but not eliminate the level of risk [the appellant] faces.” The level of risk will depend on where the appellant chooses to relocate to. As I indicate above there are parts of Pakistan such as Islamabad or the autonomous region of Gilgat-Balistan where the appellant could relocate to a majority Shia area in which there would not in all the circumstances be a real risk of him being persecuted by anti-Shia militia.

26. The Judge’s finding that relocation would be reasonable (and not unduly harsh) on the appellant or his family was not challenged and is in my assessment unquestionably correct. The appellant and his wife are well educated and have shown themselves to be capable of adjusting and establishing themselves in a new environment. They have a record of employment and the skills to find employment and to support themselves in the future.

27. The appellant has therefore failed to establish that he is a refugee or in need of protection in the United Kingdom.

Notice of Decision

The decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Wolfson contained an error of law and is set aside.

The appellant’s protection appeal is dismissed.

Luke Bulpitt

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

8 June 2026