Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2023, 15:20 GMT

Case Law

Case Law includes national and international jurisprudential decisions. Administrative bodies and tribunals are included.
Selected filters: Pakistan
Showing 1-10 of 309 results
AFFAIRE M.A.M. c. SUISSE (Requête no 29836/20)

1. La requête concerne le possible renvoi au Pakistan du requérant, ressortissant de ce pays, s’étant converti de l’islam au christianisme en Suisse, suite au rejet de sa demande d’asile. Le requérant se plaint que son renvoi lui ferait courir un risque réel pour sa vie ou d’être soumis à des mauvais traitements et que sa liberté de religion serait considérablement entravée.

26 April 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom of religion - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Pakistan - Switzerland

K v Landkreis Gifhorn, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover, Case C-519/20

La demande de décision préjudicielle porte sur l’interprétation de l’article 16, paragraphe 1, et de l’article 18 de la directive 2008/115/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 16 décembre 2008, relative aux normes et procédures communes applicables dans les États membres au retour des ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour irrégulier (JO 2008, L 348, p. 98).

10 March 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2008 Returns Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Emergency legislation - Expulsion - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Germany - Pakistan

Case of Shahzad v. Hungary

The Court: Decides to join to the merits the respondent Government’s objection concerning the applicant’s victim status, and dismisses it; Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention; Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

8 July 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Safe third country | Countries: Hungary - Pakistan

Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Chhina, 2019 SCC 29

Courts — Jurisdiction — Habeas corpus — Exceptions to exercise of jurisdiction by provincial superior courts — Immigration detainee applying for habeas corpus — Superior court declining jurisdiction to hear application on basis that detention review scheme in Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is complete, comprehensive and expert statutory scheme providing for review at least as broad as that available by way of habeas corpus and no less advantageous — Whether superior court erred in declining jurisdiction — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

10 May 2019 | Judicial Body: Canada: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Habeas corpus - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Canada - Pakistan


the appropriate guidance for a decision-maker can be summarised as follows: i) Is the Claimant genuinely an Ahmadi? In answering that question the guidance set out in paragraph 5 of the headnote in MN is well expressed. ii) The next step involves an inquiry into the Claimant’s behaviour if he or she is returned to Pakistan. Will he or she actually behave in such a way as to attract persecution? In answering that question, the decision-maker will again consider all the evidence and will, where appropriate, expressly consider whether the behaviour claimed by the asylum-seeker is genuinely an expression of their religious belief and is an authentic account of the way they will behave if returned. iii) If the decision-maker’s conclusion is that the Claimant, if returned to Pakistan, will avoid behaviour which would attract persecution, then the decision-maker must ask the question why that would be so. Many possibilities arise. The individual may genuinely wish to live quietly, and would do so whether or not repression existed in relation to the expression of his or her Ahmadi faith. The individual may have mixed motives for such behaviour. If such a quiet expression or manifestation of genuine Ahmadi belief is merely the result of established cultural norms or social pressures, then it is unlikely there will be a basis for asylum. However, if a material reason (and not necessarily the only reason) for such behaviour will be to avoid persecution, then it is likely that the Claimant will have a valid claim for asylum. There is no requirement that public expression of Ahmadi religious faith, of a kind which is likely to attract persecution, should be of “particular importance” to the Claimant. Such a requirement is inconsistent with the test as laid down in HJ (Iran). To that extent, the guidance given in the body of MN (Ahmadis) Pakistan CG and in the headnote is misleading and should not be followed.

6 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Pakistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Ordinanza n. 22233/18

2 September 2018 | Judicial Body: Italy: Italian Supreme Court (Corte Suprema di Cassazione) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Country of origin information (COI) - Religious discrimination | Countries: Italy - Pakistan

KB & AH (credibility-structured approach) Pakistan [2017] UKUT 00491 (IAC)

The ‘Credibility Indicators’ identified in the Home Office Asylum Policy Instruction, Assessing credibility and refugee status Version 3.0, 6 January 2015 provide a helpful framework within which to conduct a credibility assessment. However, any reference to a structured approach in relation to the subject matter of credibility assessment must carry a number of important (interrelated) caveats [...] Consideration of credibility in light of such indicators, if approached subject to the [..] caveats, is a valid and useful exercise, based squarely on existing learning.

13 December 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Credibility assessment - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Pakistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

AATA Case No. 1607767

30 May 2017 | Judicial Body: Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal | Topic(s): Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Hazara - Non-refoulement - Refoulement - Religious discrimination - Shia | Countries: Australia - Pakistan

Decision TB7-01837 (Jurisprudential Guide, in private), Heard at Refugee Appeals Division, Toronto, Ontario

Jurisprudential Guide: Whether the treatment experienced by Ahmadis from Pakistan amounted to persecution and whether state protection and an internal flight alternative are available.

8 May 2017 | Judicial Body: Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - State protection | Countries: Canada - Pakistan

R (on the application of MM (Lebanon)) (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent), R (on the application of Abdul Majid (Pakistan)) (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent), R (on the application of Master AF) (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent), R (on the application of Shabana Javed (Pakistan)) (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent), SS (Congo) (Appellant) v. Entry Clearance Officer, Nairobi (Respondent)

22 February 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Family reunification - Immigration law | Countries: Lebanon - Pakistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Search Refworld