Pakistani migrant says he can’t leave UK because of sex assault allegations against him

A Pakistani migrant accused of sex assault in Britain has won a reprieve against deportation – because people in his home country might harm him over the allegations. The asylum seeker argues that he cannot be deported to Pakistan because of sex offence allegations levelled against him in the UK.

He claims that people in his home nation might attack him over the accusations. The migrant, who has been granted anonymity, seeks international protection in Britain. His claim was initially dismissed, but he has now won an appeal as the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber found there were legal mistakes in the decision.

He will have his case reheard.

The Upper Tribunal heard: “The [migrant] is a national of Pakistan who made a claim for international protection on July 28, 2022. There are two stands to the claim made by [him].

“First, he will be at risk upon return to Pakistan as someone who had been accused of sexual assault in the UK and second, because of a land dispute that his family are involved in.

“The [Home Office] accepted the [migrant] had been accused of sexual assault in the UK and that his family are involved in a land dispute.

“However, the [Home Office] rejected [his] claim that he has been threatened by his family because of the allegations of sexual assault made against him…

“The [Home Office] concluded that in any event, there would be sufficient protection available to the appellant in Pakistan, and he could relocate to Lahore, Faisalabad or Multan, in Pakistan.”

The Pakistani, named only as IUD, has lived in the UK for 14 years and claimed that he is now “free to wear what he wants and have any haircut”.

The IUD claimed that this was incorrect and that the judge had made a mistake in assessing the credibility of the witnesses.

He launched an appeal against the decision to dismiss his claim for international protection.

That decision was made by the First-tier tribunal.

Upper Tribunal Judge Vinesh Mandalia ruled that the case must be re-heard because there was legal issues in assessing the credibility of his account.

The First-tier judge did not examine the evidence in totality and only his evidence in isolation, Judge Mandalia said.

Judge Mandalia said: “The assessment of credibility and the risk upon return in a claim for international protection is always a highly fact-sensitive task.

“In an appeal such as this where [The Home Office] challenges the core of [the migrant’s] account, judges adopt a variety of different evaluative techniques to assess the evidence.

“[The First Tier Tribunal Judge] found that [his] account of how his family had discovered the allegations made against him of sexual assault to be inconsistent.

“The judge here plainly had concerns about the credibility of [his] account and it was undoubtedly open to her to note there are several inconsistencies in the account provided by [him].

“I am, however, persuaded that she fell into error in her analysis of the credibility of [him] and his account.

“I accept there is a material error of law in the decision of the First Tier Tribunal and the decision must be set aside.

“The appeal is remitted to the First Tier Tribunal for hearing afresh with no findings preserved.”