Secretary of State for the Home Department v Ahmed [1999] EWCA Civ 3003 (5 November 1999)

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Ahmed [1999] EWCA Civ 3003 (5 November 1999)

If an asylum seeker would, on the evidence, continue conduct (such as proselytising) that exposes him to persecution throughout his country of origin, the internal flight alternative does not defeat his claim, even if it would be reasonable to expect restraint; the key question is whether the applicant would in fact act in a way that leads to persecution.

Citation
[1999] EWCA Civ 3003
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Respondent/appellant: Iftikhar Ahmed
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Asylum Appeal / Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Religious Persecution, Refugee Status, Proselytising, Ahmadi Persecution, Ordinance XX of 1984, Well Founded Fear of Persecution
Immigration Asylum Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Religious Persecution Refugee Status Proselytising Ahmadi Persecution +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Appellant/respondent

Iftikhar Ahmed

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Asylum Appeal / Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the internal flight alternative defeats the asylum claim of an Ahmadi who would continue proselytising if returned to Pakistan
  2. 2 Whether it is reasonable to require an asylum seeker to moderate religious conduct to avoid persecution
  3. 3 Whether the IAT erred in law by failing to address the likelihood of the appellant's conduct on return

Ratio Decidendi

If an asylum seeker would, on the evidence, continue conduct (such as proselytising) that exposes him to persecution throughout his country of origin, the internal flight alternative does not defeat his claim, even if it would be reasonable to expect restraint; the key question is whether the applicant would in fact act in a way that leads to persecution.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal set aside
  • Decision of the special adjudicator restored