1507350 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4285

1507350 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4285 (16 August 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1507350

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan

MEMBER:Angela Cranston

DATE:16 August 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:

(i)that the first named applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and

(ii)that the other applicants satisfy s.36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

Statement made on 16 August 2016 at 11:37am

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicants Protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2.    The applicants who claim to be citizens of Pakistan, applied for the visas [in] September 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas [in] May 2015.  A copy of the claims and evidence is at Annexure 1 of this decision. 

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

3.    The issues in this case is whether the first named applicant is Ahmadi (also known as Ahmadiyya) and secondly, whether she has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugee Convention in Pakistan and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm.

4. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

5. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

6.    Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

7. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

8.    In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

9.    For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

First named Applicant’s right to enter and reside in [Country 1]

1. While the Department found that the first named applicant and her children had a right to enter and reside in [Country 1], the first named applicant’s [Country 1] Visa which was temporary expired [in] April 2016. As such the first named applicant’s right to enter and reside in [Country 1] no longer exists. Since the first named applicant’s children also had the same visa that also expired [in] April 2016, their right to enter and reside in [Country 1] also no longer exists. Accordingly, there is nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the first named applicant has a right to enter and reside in any country other than her country of nationality, Pakistan.

First named Applicant’s religion

1. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant is an Ahmadi Muslim, as she claims. The first named applicant’s passport states that she is Ahmadi. In addition, the first named applicant has produced to the Tribunal a letter from [an association] verifying that she is a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the Association has indicated that it will only issue such letters to genuine Ahmadis (Letter from [name], [official], [association name], dated [June] [1993]). The Tribunal gives great weight to this letter and considers that the first named applicant is an Ahmadi Muslim as claimed.

2. As referred to above, Ahmadis in Pakistan suffer from official discrimination as a result of what are referred to as the anti-Ahmadi laws. They are prevented from calling themselves Muslim, they are prevented from holding conferences or gatherings and their right to worship is restricted. The laws prohibiting blasphemy continue to be used disproportionately against Ahmadis and, even if those accused under such laws are ultimately acquitted, they may spend long periods in gaol where they face discriminatory treatment for reasons of their religion. Ahmadis also continue to be victims of sectarian violence instigated by religious extremist groups.  According to the US Department of State, police often failed to protect members of religious minorities including Ahmadis.  (US Department of State Report Pakistan 2015 Human Rights Report).

3. The Tribunal concludes that there is a real chance that, if the first named applicant returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, she will be persecuted for reasons of her religion as an Ahmadi. The Tribunal considers that the persecution which the first named applicant fears involves 'serious harm' as required by paragraph 91R(1)(b) of the Act in that it involves a threat to her life or liberty or significant physical harassment or ill-treatment. The Tribunal considers that the first named applicant's religion as an Ahmadi is the essential and significant reason for the persecution which the applicant fears, as required by paragraph 91R(1)(a), and that the persecution which she fears involves systematic and discriminatory conduct, as required by paragraph 91R(1)(c), in that it is deliberate or intentional and involves her selective harassment for a Convention reason, namely her religion. Since the Tribunal considers on the evidence before it that the Government of Pakistan condones the persecution of Ahmadis for reasons of their religion, the Tribunal considers that the first named applicant cannot obtain protection from the State. In addition, there is nowhere in Pakistan to which the first named applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate where she would be safe from the persecution which she fears.

Conclusions

1. The Tribunal finds that the first named applicant is outside her country of nationality, Pakistan.

2. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that the first named applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for a Convention reason if she returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal finds that she is unwilling, owing to her fear of persecution, to avail herself of the protection of the Government of Pakistan. There is nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the first named applicant has a legally enforceable right to enter and reside in any country other than her country of nationality, Pakistan. The Tribunal therefore finds that the first named applicant is not excluded from Australia's protection by subsection 36(3) of the Act. It follows that the Tribunal is satisfied that the first named applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol. Consequently the first named applicant satisfies the criterion set out in paragraph 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act for the grant of a protection visa.

DECISION

1. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the first named applicant satisfies paragraph 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

2. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is satisfied that the first named applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the first named applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

3. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the second, third and fourth named applicants are members of the same family unit as the first named applicant for the purposes of s.36(2)(b)(i). As such, the fate of their application depends on the outcome of the first named applicant’s application. It follows that the other applicants will be entitled to a protection visa provided the criterion in s.36(2)(b)(ii) and the remaining criteria for the visa are met.

DECISION

1. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:

1. that the first named applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and

2. that the other applicants satisfy s.36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

Angela Cranston
Member

CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. In her application, the first named applicant stated the following:

In summary serious persecution of our family starts, when President of Pakistan, Gen Mohammad Zia Ul Haq issued an anti-Ahmadiyya ordinance on April 26, 1984. My [father] was [occupation] in [workplace] at Sukkur Sindh, and my [Relative 1] was former [occupation] at [a workplace], and by that time he was [name]. And he martyred for being Ahmadi [in] 1984 in Sukkur, when he was coming back home after delivering Maghrib prayer. Police purposely not arrested the killers as usual, exactly after a period of one year my [relatives] ([name] and [name]) were implicated in false [criminal] case in May 1985, and my father left Sukkur along with all family members and moved to a village [in] district [Punjab]. My father got transfer from Sukkur to Hyderabad after very stressful struggle. I completed my rest of education from Hyderabad, Secondary, [tertiary qualifications] in [study] in [year]. I got married to [my husband] in April 2002, he is [occupation]. In the beginning he was working with [a] company at Karachi Pakistan. Later on he got transferred on a project with the same company, in [Country 2].

We were there for [number] years, but do not have the religious freedom. As already my husband’s project has been completed, and the company has already fired a lot of other staff members, we were not having any other option rather than going back to Pakistan, if he gets fired as well.

And we do not want to go back in Pakistan, because it is not peaceful and especially for Ahmadi community to whom I belong, who is facing persecution since long time and the Pakistani government never protect them.

I arrived in Australia [in] August 2014 along with my family on a [temporary] Visa. I found Australia very peaceful, freedom of religion and no persecution at all, therefore I decided to remain here for rest of my life and applying for protection visa on the basis of my religious persecution that my family has been facing in Pakistan for a very long time which is as follows:

It is the event of 1984, when our family start facing the serious persecution. The president of Pakistan, Gen Mohammad Zia Ul Haq issued an anti-Ahmadi ordinance on April 26, 1984. My [father] was [occupation] in [workplace] at Sukkur Sindh, and my [Relative 1] was former [occupation] of [a workplace] and by that time he was [name]. And he martyred for being Ahmadi [in] 1984 in Sukkur, when he was coming back after delivering Maghrib prayer. Police purposely not arrested the killers as usual.

Exactly after a period of one year my [relatives] ([name] and [name]) were implicated in false [criminal] case in May 1985 and were sentenced to death, which was later converted to life imprisonment. They were released from jail [in] 1992.

My father left Sukkur along with all family members and moved to a Village [in] district [Punjab], lived there up to a year due to that serious persecution. My father started struggle to get transfer from Sukkur to any other city and finally after very stressful struggle he got transferred to Hyderabad Sindh and later on rest of the family member also migrated there.

My [sibling] started their own [business] in Hyderabad by the name of [name] in 1992, situated at [location] Hyderabad and with the passage of the time and with the help of Almighty Allah it grows up and become reputable company, they were the only Ahmadi doing such business in that market. And after some time publicised as Ahmadi.

In the year 2008 some threatening letters were sent in the market in various shops that ‘Ahmadies their shops and homes we blasted by the bombs, Oh Muslims eject them from your territory and markets as Muslims could not face any harm in this regard send this information of Ahmadies is on following email address and take part in Jihad, Email: Kill the qadyanis [email address].mailto: Jahadi Talban Group. And due to their good reputation in the market no one make any opposition their market union wrote a letter [in] this regard, but no any action was taken by police nor investigated the case.

My husband’s [sibling] [is] a well-known [occupation] in Karachi Pakistan, he used to receive threatening letters from time to time.

Our major opponents are (Suni Tehreek, Lashkar E Jhangvi, Sipa Sahaba, Khatam E Nabwat and Jamat E Islami) and I have a higher risk from them.

Authorities of that country will never protect me, as they have never protect any Ahmadi in past and neither they arrested or punished any accused of Ahmadi assassinations.

[In] May 2010, there was attack in our mosque in Lahore while performing Jumma prayers. There were live coverage on various news channels, every one witnessed, police were there but not did any action against that peoples who were killing our innocent Ahmadis and a lot of Ahmadis martyred. But police did nothing against the killers.

[In] February 2012 we heard that an [Ahmadi] shot dead in Nawabshah, which is around hundred kilometres from Hyderabad, he was recently come from Australia to meet his [children]. After one week another Ahmadi [was] shot dead in [Nawabshah] all this happened because they were Ahmadi and we never heard that any criminal rested, who involved in the killing of Ahmadies and there is no justice for Ahmadies in Pakistan.

Recently in July 2014 Ahmadi families were killed in Gujranwala Punjab Pakistan, some people burned Ahmadi’s houses that midnight when they were sleeping at home and three people including two childs were died.

[In] July fortunately, we received our [temporary] visa, as above recent incidents made our community shocked and panicked due to that circumstances and the level of danger involved finally we decided to seek protection in Australia. We reached here [in] August 2014.

I have [children]. They are too young, [details deleted]. I want them to grow up in peaceful environment.

Upon arrival in Australia what I found out that there is no persecution for anyone for their faith of religion. Everyone has equal rights in practising their religion of faith and Australia is also a country where human rights are restored regardless of their colour, race and religion.

On arrival in Australia, I sought independent advice with respect to my circumstance, situation and my religious background in Pakistan and my persecution in that respect and I was advised that I can apply for a protection Visa to Australia which will receive a fair judgement by the department. Henceforth, I decide to apply for protection Visa in Australia and declared myself as detailed as possible.

1. Also included in the application were the passports of the first named applicant and her [children]. All passports indicated that their religion was Ahmadiyya with the exception of the first named applicant’s [one child] whose passport indicated that [the child’s] religion was Islam. Although not an applicant himself, the first named applicant’s husband’s passport was also included and indicated his religion is Islam.

2. A letter dated [in] November 2014 from [an association] stating that they verified that the first named applicant and her [children] were members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community was also included on the Departments file.

3. The Department rejected the application because the applicants’ passports indicated they had various visas for [Country 3], [Country 1] and [Country 2]. The Department found in relation to the first named applicant that:

Right to enter and reside in [Country 2]

The applicant resided in the [Country 2] with her husband and children from May 2008 to August 2014 and she holds a current residence permit for that country which expires [in] June 2015.

I note that on the residence permit itself it is specifically stated that the permit will become in valid if the Visa holder is out of the [Country 2] for more than six months. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] August 2014 and has not since departed, which would likely render her permit invalid as six months has passed since departure and the date of this decision. As such the applicant does not have a right to enter and reside in the [Country 2]. 

While not being included as a dependent on the PV application, I note that the applicant provided a copy of her [husband’s] (DOB: [date]) [Country 2] residency permit which expired [in] January 2015.

Right to enter and reside in [Country 3]

As provided above, the applicant holds a valid visitor Visa (multiple entry) to [Country 3] which expires [in] April 2015. Based on the date of this decision the visas have now expired and the applicant does not have a current right to enter and reside in the [Country 3].

Right to enter and reside in [Country 1]

As provided above, the applicant holds a valid visitor’s visa (class VI, multiple-entry) to [Country 1] which expires [in] April 2016…

Country information indicates the visitor visas are formerly referred to as temporary resident visas’ in [Country 1]. These visas can be valid for multiple entry for up to [number] years, or are valid for a single entry only. On arrival at the port of entry in [Country 1], the Visa holder is greeted by a border services officer who determines whether the person meets the requirements to be permitted to enter [Country 1].

The applicant’s [Country 1] Visa is temporary with multiple stays of six months permitted and remains valid to [date] April 2016. As such the right to enter reside in [Country 1] presently exists and is not a conditional right or expectancy…

I find that the applicant is able to enter and reside in another country (namely [Country 1]), apart from Australia and as a result I find that sub section 36(3) of the Migration Act applies to the applicant.

1. Similar findings were made in relation to the first named applicant’s children.

Country Information

1. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s Pakistan Country Information Report 15 January 2016:

There are approximately 500,000 Ahmadis in Pakistan. Ahmadis mostly live in Punjab, including Rabwah, the location of the movement’s headquarters. A larger population of Ahmadis lives outside Pakistan, including Africa, Indonesia, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States. This includes the Supreme Head of the movement, who has lived in the UK since 1984.

3.14 Pakistan’s Ahmadi community is comparatively well-educated and relatively prosperous. Although there are no formal restrictions on entry into Pakistan’s civil service or security forces, Ahmadis reportedly experience difficulties regarding promotion into the senior levels of these organisations. Unlike some Shia names, it is generally not possible to identify Ahmadis by name alone.

3.15 A number of discriminatory laws inhibit Ahmadis’ rights to practise their religion openly. Although Ahmadis identify as Muslim, the Constitution describes them as non-Muslim. Under Ordinance XX – upheld by the Supreme Court – Ahmadis may not identify, or ‘pose,’ as Muslims. They are also barred from worshipping in non-Ahmadi mosques or public prayer rooms; performing the Muslim call to prayer; using the traditional Islamic greeting in public; publicly quoting from the Quran; preaching in public; seeking converts; or producing, publishing and disseminating religious materials. These acts are punishable by imprisonment for up to three years. Ahmadis also have no representation in Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology. Ahmadis are exempt from the otherwise mandatory 2.5 per cent zakat deductions on personal income.

3.16 Ahmadis continue to experience political discrimination. Changes to the electoral system in 1985 established a separate registration list for non-Muslims. While electoral reforms in 2002 removed the distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims, Ahmadis must still register on a separate, Ahmadi-specific list. In the 2013 general elections, many Ahmadis refused to register on this list and were therefore unable to vote.

3.17 The Ahmadi community has told DFAT that Pakistani authorities have demolished, restricted access to, or forcibly occupied Ahmadi places of worship. Mobs have also reportedly set fire to some Ahmadi places of worship, and Ahmadi graves have been desecrated and their dead disinterred. The Ahmadi community has also reported the closure of Ahmadi publications, removal of Ahmadi students from schools and universities, and reporting of Ahmadi communities en masse to local police forces for unspecified crimes.

3.18 Since the promulgation of Ordinance XX, there has been an increase in the number of physical attacks against the Ahmadi community in Pakistan. According to the Human Rights Commission Pakistan (HRCP), 11 Ahmadis died in sectarian violence in 2014. On 17 July 2014, for example, an Ahmadi grandmother and her two granddaughters died when a mob set fire to their house in Gujranwala, Punjab.

3.19 According to the Ahmadi community, authorities have colluded and participated in some of these attacks. The leaked Abbottabad Commission report also suggests that police in Lahore protected perpetrators of violence against Ahmadis in 2010. DFAT is unable to verify these claims.

3.20 DFAT assesses that Pakistan’s Ahmadi community is subject to a high level of official discrimination, which impacts their ability to freely practice religion and limits the extent of their political engagement. Ahmadis are also subject to a moderate level of societal discrimination and a low level of violence, although this violence is generally mitigated by Ahamadis’ relatively high socio-economic status.

1. Extracts relevant to Ahmadi from the US Department of State International Religious Freedom Report for 2014 Pakistan are as follows:

The constitution establishes Islam as the state religion, and it requires that laws be consistent with Islam. The constitution states, “subject to law, public order, and morality, every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice, and propagate his religion.” The government’s general failure to investigate, arrest, or prosecute those responsible for religious freedom abuses promoted an environment of impunity that fostered intolerance and acts of violence, according to domestic and international human rights organizations. Government policies did not afford equal protection to members of minority religious groups, and due to discriminatory legislation such as blasphemy laws and laws designed to marginalize the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, minorities often were afraid to profess freely their religious beliefs. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), police registered 12 new cases under blasphemy laws during the year and the courts sentenced three individuals to death, six individuals to life imprisonment, and three individuals to two-years of imprisonment for blasphemy. The government did not carry out any executions for blasphemy during the year. The government announced it would create a national council for minorities with Christian, Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh representatives…

The U.S. embassy and consulates general maintained a regular dialogue with the government, including ministers, other high-ranking officials, members of parliament, and civil society, including leaders of all religious groups and minority community representatives, to encourage religious freedom, tolerance, and harmony and to discuss specific issues of concern. These issues included: blasphemy laws; curriculum reform in the public and madrassah education systems; treatment of the Ahmadiyya, Christian, Hindu, Sikh, and other minority communities; sectarian violence; and ways to improve the protection of and outreach to minority religious groups.

Section I. Religious Demography

The U.S. government estimates the total population at 196.2 million (July 2014 estimate). According to the most recent census conducted in 1998, 95 percent of the population is Muslim (75 percent of the Muslim population is listed officially as Sunni and 25 percent as Shia). There are also an estimated two to four million Ahmadi and 500,000 to 800,000 Zikri Muslims. Groups officially constituting the remaining 5 percent of the population include Hindus, Christians, Parsis/Zoroastrians, Bahais, Sikhs, Buddhists, and others. Other religious groups include Kalasha, Kihals, and Jains. There is one known Jew. Less than 0.5 percent of the population is silent on religious affiliation or claims not to adhere to a particular religious group.

Section II. Status of Government Respect for Religious Freedom

Legal Framework

The constitution declares that adequate provisions shall be made for all citizens to profess and practice their religious beliefs freely. It states “Every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion.” Other constitutional provisions and laws, however, impose limits on this right, which is “subject to law, public order and morality.”

According to the constitution and penal code, Ahmadis are not Muslims and are prohibited from calling themselves Muslims or their belief Islam, as well as from preaching or propagating their religious beliefs, proselytizing, or insulting the religious feelings of Muslims. The punishment for violation of these provisions is imprisonment for up to three years and a fine….

Non-Muslim missionary activity is permitted and missionaries can proselytize as long as there is no preaching against Islam and the missionaries acknowledge they are not Muslim (thereby excluding Ahmadis). Foreign missionaries are required to have visas valid from two to five years and are allowed one entry into the country per year. Only “replacement” visas for those taking the place of departing missionaries are available.

The government does not restrict religious publishing in general; however, the sale of Ahmadiyya religious literature is banned. The law prohibits publishing any criticism of Islam or its prophets and insults to others’ religious beliefs.

The government designates religious affiliation on passports and requests religious information in national identity card applications. Those wishing to be listed as Muslims must swear they believe the Prophet Muhammad is the final prophet, and must denounce the Ahmadiyya movement’s founder as a false prophet and his followers as non-Muslim. This provision inhibits Ahmadis from obtaining legal documents and pressures community members to deny their beliefs in order to enjoy citizenship rights, including voting, which requires an identity card.

The constitution provides for “freedom to manage religious institutions.” In principle, the government does not restrict organized religious groups from establishing places of worship and training members of the clergy. There is no official restriction on the construction of Ahmadiyya places of worship; however, Ahmadis are forbidden to call them mosques….

Ahmadiyya community leaders expressed continued concern over authorities’ targeting and harassment of Ahmadis for blasphemy, violations of “anti-Ahmadi laws,” or other crimes. The vague wording of the legal provision forbidding Ahmadis from directly or indirectly identifying themselves as Muslims enabled officials to bring charges against members of the community for using the standard Muslim greeting or for naming their children Muhammad. According to Ahmadiyya leaders, authorities charged 24 Ahmadis in eight separate cases, largely in connection with “anti-Ahmadi laws.” Police charged 13 Ahmadis for allegedly defiling the Quran in separate instances….

According to Ahmadiyya community members, between 1984 (when the “anti-Ahmadi laws” were promulgated) and 2014, authorities sealed 33 Ahmadiyya mosques and barred construction of 52 mosques, while assailants demolished or damaged 31 Ahmadiyya mosques, set 14 mosques on fire, and forcibly occupied 19 mosques….

Discrimination against Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and Ahmadis in admission to higher education institutions persisted. Minority leaders reported their communities faced restrictions in securing admissions into colleges and universities. Sikh leaders said that in some instances, Sikh students were required to obtain a certificate of permission from the Evacuee Trust Property Board, which they said was a lengthy process that discouraged Sikhs from pursuing higher education.

Most religious minority groups complained of discrimination in government hiring. While there was a 5 percent quota for hiring religious minorities at the federal and provincial levels, employers did not consistently enforce this requirement…

Generally, sacred books for religious minorities, except Ahmadis, were imported freely.

The government funded and facilitated Hajj travel for Muslims, but had no similar program for pilgrimages by religious minorities. Due to the passport requirements to list religious affiliation and denounce the Ahmadiyya prophet, Ahmadis were unable to participate in the Hajj.

1. Extracts relevant to Ahmadi from the US Department of State Report Pakistan 2015 Human Rights Report are as follows:

Prisoners who were members of religious minorities generally received poorer facilities than Muslims and often suffered violence at the hands of fellow inmates. Representatives of Christian and Ahmadiyya Muslim communities claimed their members were often subjected to abuse in prison….

Police often failed to protect members of religious minorities--including Christians, Ahmadiyya Muslims, Shi’a Muslims, and Hindus--from attacks. There were improvements, however, in police professionalism and instances of local authorities protecting minorities from discrimination and communal violence….

Courts routinely failed to protect the rights of religious minorities. Courts used laws prohibiting blasphemy discriminatorily against Shi’a, Christians, Ahmadis, and members of other religious minority groups. Lower courts often did not require adequate evidence in blasphemy cases, and some accused and convicted persons spent years in jail before higher courts eventually overturned their convictions or ordered them freed…

Blasphemy and anti-Ahmadi laws restricted publication on certain topics…

Authorities generally prohibited Ahmadis, a religious minority, from holding conferences or gatherings….

The government requires voters to indicate their religion when registering to vote and requires Ahmadis to declare themselves as non-Muslims. Since Ahmadis consider themselves Muslims, many were unable to vote if they did not comply…

Societal violence due to religious intolerance remained a serious problem. Occasionally, there were reports of mob violence against religious minorities, including Christians, Ahmadiyya Muslims, Hindus, and Shi’a Muslims…