IA099912015

For the Appellant: Mr I Graham, Counsel instructed by Visawise Immigration Services

It is plain beyond any doubt that no part of the original application was made on the basis of any Humanitarian Protection reason, rights engaged by Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR and/or particularly relating to the risk of persecution under the Refugee Convention and/or the risk of proscribed ill-treatment such that internal relocation was not a reasonable option and that there was no sufficiency of protection from the state to which the Appellant could have recourse.

Again those grounds do not particularise or raise any claim of a risk of persecution or honour killing or of ill-treatment by her ex-spouse and/or his family but was simply in the most general terms. Documents originally provided in support again barely make any reference to the issue and a statement that was lodged with the application which again barely touched upon such issues in any meaningful way and certainly did not suggest that the Appellant was at risk of persecution on return.

It is perhaps therefore unsurprising that when the matter came before the judge on 1 June 2015 when in considering the matter on the papers that were before him and in the light of representations made there was nothing meaningful to suggest that there was a Refugee Convention claim nor a risk of ill-treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR nor any need for Humanitarian Protection. Quite simply there was nothing to suggest that those matters had been addressed to the Secretary of State by way of an application even up until the time of the consideration of the appeal.

The judge it seems took the view that the evidence did not support the claims of risk associated with such criminal proceedings as may have been initiated in Pakistan by the Appellant's ex-husband. Rather on the material that he thought he had before him there was no material that particularly assisted such claims.