1621309 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, sought review of the Minister's decision to cancel his protection visa. The applicant had previously been granted a protection visa based on his membership of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and his Barelvi religious affiliation, which he claimed placed him at risk of harm in Pakistan. The Minister's decision to cancel the visa was based on the applicant providing incorrect information in his protection visa application and the Minister's assessment that the applicant had not established a continuing fear of harm upon return to Pakistan, despite his claims of ongoing fear and recent trips to Pakistan for his father's funeral and his mother's illness. The matter was heard by Robert Titterton.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had provided incorrect information in his protection visa application, and if so, whether this constituted a failure to disclose a fact that might have been relevant to the grant of the visa. Furthermore, the court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a continuing subjective fear of persecution or harm upon return to Pakistan, and whether there were objective reasons to fear such harm, considering his past political affiliations and religious beliefs.

The court considered the applicant's explanations for the alleged incorrect information provided in his initial application, finding that some discrepancies were not necessarily indicative of an intention to mislead. Crucially, the court assessed the applicant's claims of ongoing fear of harm in light of his recent travel to Pakistan. The court accepted that the applicant had provided reasonable and credible explanations for his return trips, namely to attend his murdered father's funeral and to care for his ill mother. These explanations, coupled with the applicant's continued adherence to his Barelvi faith and past political involvement, led the court to conclude that the applicant had a continuing subjective fear of harm, and that there were objective reasons to support this fear.

The court set aside the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's protection visa and remitted the matter to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.