## Facts

- In August 1984, three Pakistani nationals arrived at Heathrow Airport and claimed asylum in the United Kingdom on religious grounds.
- They were members of the Ahmadiyya community, a minority religious sect in Pakistan whose members described their faith as involving a duty to seek converts.
- In April 1984, Pakistan enacted Ordinance No. XX, which (among other restrictions) prohibited Ahmadis from calling themselves Muslims and from proselytising.
- The applicants told immigration officers they had faced discrimination in Pakistan, including in education and employment.
- At the time of entry, they indicated they had not personally suffered physical violence.
- Later, two applicants filed further affidavits stating they had suffered physical attacks in Pakistan and asserting that Ahmadis could not rely on police protection.
- In April 1985, the Secretary of State refused asylum, concluding the applicants had not shown a well-founded fear of persecution under the Refugee Convention.
- The High Court (QBD) dismissed their application for judicial review. The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division).

## Issues

1. Whether Ordinance No. XX, by itself, required treating all Ahmadi applicants as having a well-founded fear of persecution.
2. Whether the Secretary of State applied the correct legal test by examining how Ordinance No. XX operated in practice and then assessing each applicant against that background.
3. Whether, on judicial review principles (including anxious scrutiny in asylum cases), the refusal decision was unlawful given the applicants’ evidence about religious practice, discrimination, and later allegations of violence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Secretary of State’s refusal of asylum.
- The court held the Secretary of State did not err in law by declining to treat Ordinance No. XX as persecution of all Ahmadis without more.
- The court accepted that the Secretary of State was entitled to assess (i) what the ordinance prohibited, (ii) its practical impact on ordinary Ahmadi life, and (iii) whether each applicant’s circumstances meant a real risk of persecution.
- Given the material before the Secretary of State, including differences between the initial accounts at Heathrow and later affidavits, the conclusion that these applicants had not shown a well-founded fear was open to him on judicial review.

## Legal Principles

- A discriminatory law affecting a religious minority does not automatically amount to persecution for every member of that group; refugee status still turns on a well-founded fear based on the individual’s situation.
- An asylum decision-maker may proceed by: identifying the foreign law’s restrictions, determining how those restrictions operate in everyday life, and then evaluating each claimant’s likely exposure to serious harm.
- In asylum judicial review, courts apply anxious scrutiny but do not replace the Secretary of State’s fact assessment where the correct legal test is used and the decision is within the range of lawful outcomes.
- Evidence about the claimant’s likely conduct on return, and whether that conduct would realistically trigger serious harm or punishment amounting to persecution, is central to the Convention analysis.

## Conclusion

Ahmad and Others held that Pakistan’s Ordinance No. XX could be recognized as discriminatory and potentially serious, yet it did not make all Ahmadis refugees as a matter of law. The Court of Appeal upheld the Secretary of State’s refusal because the decision-maker could lawfully evaluate the ordinance’s real-world operation and then decide, on the record for these applicants, that they had not shown a well-founded fear of persecution.


Ahmad and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1990) Imm AR 61 (1990)