## Facts

- Two married women from Pakistan left their matrimonial homes after serious abuse by their husbands and sought asylum in the United Kingdom under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
- Each feared return because husbands and others could falsely accuse them of adultery, exposing them to prosecution for sexual immorality and severe punishments, including flogging or stoning if convicted.
- Factfinders accepted the women faced serious harm and that Pakistani authorities were unwilling or unable to provide effective protection against domestic violence and adultery allegations.
- Despite those findings, asylum was denied on the basis that the risk did not arise “for reasons of” a Convention ground, particularly not “membership of a particular social group.”
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the claims, reasoning that the proposed social group lacked an “independent, cohesive identity.”
- The appeals were heard together by the House of Lords.

## Issues

1. Whether the appellants qualified as members of a “particular social group” under Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention.
2. Whether their well-founded fear of persecution was “for reasons of” membership in that group, including where harm was inflicted by non-state actors and the state failed to protect.
3. (Raised but not determinative) Whether the risk could alternatively be framed as persecution for reasons of political opinion.

## Decision

- The House of Lords allowed both appeals and held the appellants met the Convention definition of “refugee.”
- It held that “women in Pakistan” can constitute a “particular social group,” and that a narrower formulation—women in Pakistan unprotected by the state from violence or adultery accusations—also qualifies.
- It rejected importing a requirement that a social group must be cohesive, voluntarily associated, or organized.
- It found the persecution nexus satisfied because the serious harm risk and the discriminatory denial of state protection were linked to the appellants’ status as women (and, on the narrower view, women exposed to adultery allegations without effective protection).

## Legal Principles

- A “particular social group” may be defined by an innate/immutable characteristic or one so fundamental to human dignity that a person should not be forced to abandon it; gender can satisfy this test.
- The Convention does not require a “particular social group” to show cohesiveness, cooperation, or voluntary association.
- Persecution may be carried out by non-state actors where the state is unwilling or unable to provide protection; discriminatory state inaction can be part of the persecution analysis.
- The “for reasons of” nexus may be established where systemic discrimination and denial of protection are materially connected to the claimant’s membership in the protected group.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords recognized that gender can define a “particular social group” and held that severe gendered harm, combined with a discriminatory failure of state protection, can constitute persecution “for reasons of” group membership under the Refugee Convention.


Islam v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t, [1999] 2 A.C. 629 (H.L.)