UK - Upper Tribunal, 20 June 2011, MT (Ahmadi - HJ (Iran)) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 00277 (IAC)

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
[2011] UKUT 00277
Court Name:
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

The guidance in HJ (Iran) (see separate summary in this database) should be applied, by analogy, in cases where the applicant feared persecution on account of their religion. Consequently, the Tribunal had to consider the reason why an Ahmadi applicant for asylum had modified his behaviour by preaching only to people who would not put him at risk of persecution.


The applicant was a devout Ahmadi from Pakistan. Trying to convert people to his religion was a criminal offence.  The Tribunal accepted part of his account; in particular that he had written three books on his faith. The First Tier Tribunal held that he preached his faith, but only in private to friends and family. He had also preached openly when he was abroad. It considered the current country guidance and found that “the risk is well below that necessary to engage international protection” and dismissed the appeal. The applicant appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

Decision & Reasoning: 
The Upper Tribunal found that the guidance in HJ (Iran) should be applied, by analogy, to the applicant’s case. The failure of the First Tier Tribunal to do so was an error.  It therefore continued to reconsider the appeal. 

It held that the first question was to decide whether the applicant was a devout Ahmadi. As this had been accepted, the second question was to ask whether he would be persecuted if he preached openly. The Tribunal found that he would be persecuted, referring to the current country guidance. The third question to ask was what he would be do on return. The Tribunal held that he would continue to preach to people who were “not dangerous” because of the fear of persecution that he had of preaching openly. It continued to hold that there was no prospect of him relocating to Rebwah because, he would still be at risk there if he preached to “dangerous persons”. It allowed the appeal.

Appeal allowed.


HJ (Iran) and RT (Zimbabwe) are both separately summarised.

Other sources cited: 

UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("Istanbul Protocol"), 2004, HR/P/PT/8/Rev.1

Craig Administrative Law  5th Ed. (2003) ch 13.

Case Law Cited: 

UK - Patterson v London Borough of Greenwich [1994] 26 HLR 159

UK - R (Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 36; [2003] 2 All ER 905

UK - Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014

UK - Nadarajah & Amirthanathan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1768

UK - ID & Ors v The Home Office [2005] EWCA Civ 38

UK - IA (Pakistan) CG [2007] UKAIT 00088

UK - AB and DM (DRC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, CG [2005] UKIAT 00118