UK - Upper Tribunal, 11 November 2010, AW (sufficiency of protection) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 31(IAC)
Machine-found from the cited source, not yet confirmed by a human. Open the source before relying on it.
What was at stake
EDAL summary. In assessing state protection, a judge must look, notwithstanding a general sufficiency of protection in a country, to the individual circumstances of the applicant. In assessing whether an appellant’...
What happened
The applicant, a police officer from North Waziristan, Pakistan, faced persecution from the MQM political party after arresting its members during his duties. Following threats and violence against him, including the murders of his wife and brother by MQM members, he fled to the UK seeking asylum. His appeal for asylum was initially dismissed by the First Tier Tribunal, which cited a general sufficiency of protection in Pakistan.
What the court decided
The Upper Tribunal held that when assessing state protection, a judge must consider the individual circumstances of the applicant, even if there is a general sufficiency of protection in the country. This includes accounting for past persecution of the applicant and their family to determine if there are good reasons to believe such persecution will not be repeated and if the authorities can provide the required protection. Applying this, the Tribunal found the applicant had suffered past persecution and faced future risk, with no likelihood of sufficient protection from Pakistani authorities.
How the court got there
The Upper Tribunal determined that the First Tier Tribunal failed to adequately consider the individual circumstances of the applicant, particularly his past persecution and the specific risks he faced from the MQM. The Tribunal emphasized that even in cases where there is a general sufficiency of protection, judges must evaluate the unique context of the applicant's situation to ascertain whether the state can provide the necessary protection against future persecution.
Statutes and cases cited
- § Qualification Directive art. 4
- § Qualification Directive art. 7
- Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Categories
Authoritative link
This is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.
Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.