Ahmad and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
England and Wales Court of Appeal, Civil Division
(1990) Imm AR 61 (1990)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In August 1984, Ahmad and other individuals (defendants) arrived in the United Kingdom from Pakistan and applied for religious asylum. According to their affidavits, Ahmad and the other individuals were members of the Ahmadiya community, a minority religious sect in Pakistan. In 1984 the Pakistani government enacted Ordinance No. XX, which forbade Ahmadis from calling themselves Muslims or seeking new converts to their sect. Ahmad and the other individuals also told immigration officers that they had been subject to discrimination in education and employment. At Heathrow, Ahmad and the other individuals had claimed they had not suffered any personal violence themselves. However, two individuals submitted an additional affidavit stating that they had suffered physical violence in Pakistan and that Ahmadis could not look to Pakistani police for protection. The Secretary of State (plaintiff) found that Ahmad and the other individuals failed to demonstrate their fear of persecution was well-founded and denied their applications. Ahmad and the other individuals appealed to the court of appeal, arguing that because the Ahmadi sect is inherently evangelical, the practice of their faith immediately places them within conflict of Ordinance No. XX. Ahmad and the other individuals reasserted their fear of persecution on the basis of their religious faith if they returned to Pakistan.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Farquharson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.