Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2023, 11:42 GMT
Refworld Home
Latest Refworld Updates for Pakistan RSS feed

Pakistan - flag Pakistan

UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.

Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 6,506 results
#IBelong Campaign Update, January-March 2022

5 May 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

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 | Document type: Case Law | 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 | Document type: Case Law | 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 | Document type: Case Law | 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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Habeas corpus - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Canada - Pakistan

WA (PAKISTAN) v. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

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) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Pakistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the case of WA (Pakistan) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department before the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

14 December 2018 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

Six charged in Pakistan over murder of infant on faith healer's orders

3 December 2018 | Publisher: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty | Document type: Country News

Pakistan to charge TLP leaders with terrorism, sedition

1 December 2018 | Publisher: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty | Document type: Country News

ARC and DCR comments on the EASO Country of Origin Information Report: Pakistan Security Situation, October 2018

December 2018 | Publisher: Asylum Research Centre (ARC) | Document type: Commentaries

Search Refworld

Advanced Search | Search Tips
UNHCR logo