CEDAW/C/38/D/10/2005
Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office rejected the author’s
asylum application.
2.5 The author appealed against the “Refusal of Leave to Enter after Refusal of
Asylum” by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office,
claiming that her removal would be a violation of the 1951 Convention on the
Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms. She asserted that her claim was credible; that she had a
well-founded fear of persecution by a non-state agent, for the 1951 Convention
reason of her membership in a particular social group (women in Pakistan); that
Pakistan did not offer her sufficient protection; that there was no real option of
internal flight and, in any event it would not be reasonable; and that article 3 of
the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was
violated.
2.6 On 16 April 2004, the Adjudicator, sitting as the first instance court, dismissed the
author’s appeal on both asylum and human rights grounds. The Adjudicator, while
sympathizing with the author’s situation and accepting the author’s factual case,
did not accept the author’s submission that she could not relocate further away
from her ex-husband within Pakistan. As a result, he concluded that he could not
see why there would be a serious possibility or reasonable chance of her being at
risk of further persecution on return to Pakistan if she relocated within the
country. He also found that the difficulties that she might experience on return
would not constitute persecution as such and that she would be sufficiently
protected in Pakistan, including because the parties were no longer married.
2.7 On 31 July 2004, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refused the author’s
application for permission to appeal. The decision was communicated to the
author on 10 August 2004.
2.8 The author challenged the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal by
applying for Statutory Review in accordance with the relevant Civil Procedure
Rules before the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Administrative
Court.
2.9 On 14 October 2004, the High Court affirmed the decision. It found no error of
law; that the Adjudicator had been entitled to conclude, for the reasons he gave,
that, even accepting the central core of the claimant’s story as he did, she would
not be at risk if on return to Pakistan she relocated to a place sufficiently far away
from her former husband’s residence; and that there would be no real prospect of
an appeal succeeding. The decision was final.
2.10 On 15 October 2004, the author received “notification of temporary admission
to a person who is liable to be detained”.
07-37948
3