"353. When a human rights or asylum claim has been refused or withdrawn or treated as withdrawn under paragraph 333C of these Rules and any appeal relating to that claim is no longer pending, the decision maker will consider any further submissions and, if rejected, will then determine whether they amount to a fresh claim. The submissions will amount to a fresh claim if they are significantly different from the material that has previously been considered. The submissions will only be significantly different if the content: (i) had not already been considered; and (ii) taken together with the previously considered material, created a realistic prospect of success, notwithstanding its rejection."
"6. There was broad agreement as to the Secretary of State's task under Rule 353. He has to consider the new material together with the old and make two judgements. First, whether the new material is significantly different from that already submitted, on the basis of which the asylum claim has failed, that to be judged under Rule 353(i) according to whether the content of the material has already been considered. If the material is not 'significantly different' the Secretary of State has to go no further. Second, if the material is significantly different, the Secretary of State has to consider whether it, taken together with the material previously considered, creates a realistic prospect of success in a further asylum claim. That second judgement will involve not only judging the reliability of the new material, but also judging the outcome of tribunal proceedings based on that material. To set aside one point that was said to be a matter of some concern, the Secretary of State, in assessing the reliability of new material, can of course have in mind both how the material relates to other material already found by an adjudicator to be reliable, and also have in mind, where that is relevantly probative, any finding as to the honesty or reliability of the applicant that was made by the previous adjudicator. However, he must also bear in mind that the latter may be of little relevance when, as is alleged in both of the particular cases before us, the new material does not emanate from the applicant himself, and thus cannot be said to be automatically suspect because it comes from a tainted source. 7. The Rule only imposes a somewhat modest test that the application has to meet before it becomes a fresh claim. First, the question is whether there is a realistic prospect of success in an application before an adjudicator, but not more than that. Second, as Mr Nicol QC pertinently pointed out, the adjudicator himself does not have to achieve certainty, but only to think that there is a real risk of the applicant being persecuted on return. Third, and importantly, since asylum is in issue the consideration of all the decision-makers, the Secretary of State, the adjudicator and the court, must be informed by the anxious scrutiny of the material that is axiomatic in decisions that if made incorrectly may lead to the applicant's exposure to persecution. If authority is needed for that proposition, see per Lord Bridge of Harwich in Bugdaycay v SSHD[1987] AC 514 at p 531F."
"19. Of course, if it is intrinsically incredible, or if when one looks at the whole of the case, it is possible to say that no person could reasonably believe this evidence, it should be rejected. If it is, on the face of it, credible and if, despite the feeling that it might be disbelieved, it is not possible to say that it could not reasonably be believed, then, as it seems to me, the decision ought to be based upon that state of affairs. The Secretary of State would be wrong to say 'I don't believe it and therefore I am not going to regard this as a fresh claim'."
"8. The appellant's position is that she had been persecuted on account of her membership of a social group as a woman in Pakistan. She entered into an arranged marriage on21 January 1995 in Pakistan. Her life then changed when she found that her new husband was a strict Muslim and a control freak. Her life was miserable. She was not allowed to visit her family or friends. There were many arguments and he would raise his hand to her for raising her voice. Her two sons were not allowed to play outside or go out either. At the age of four, they were sent to the Madrassa. The appellant became ill with TB and had a liver problem. She was still being beaten and saw her children suffer as she did. She needed to see a specialist for her condition, but if the doctor was a man, the appellant's husband would not let the appellant have treatment, until she was close to death. In this ill condition she gave birth to three daughters. The appellant then expected another child and was four months pregnant when there was another argument and her husband beat her. She lost her child on21 April 2007 . She reported the matter to the police on22 April 2007 . Her husband was arrested and through the police, a reconciliation was organised. 9. Her husband then arranged visas for the whole family and they came to the UK as a gesture of happiness and making a new beginning. They arrived on16 May 2008 . The appellant's husband considered there was too much freedom and so the applicant was only allowed out wearing a full niqab. One day they all went to the park and it was very hot so the appellant had to remove her veil for a few minutes to get some air to let her breathe. Her husband took a photo. When the photos were developed, he kicked up a fuss as she was not wearing the veil. He beat the appellant and the children and threatened them. He stormed out of the house. The appellant and children were scared for their lives. He returned the next day. The appellant feared he had returned to Pakistan."
"29. I consider that the appellant has fabricated her account. There are a number of documents before me from Pakistan but they have not been sent to the respondent in original form for verification. It is well-known that documents are easy to forge in Pakistan and so without verification, I am not prepared to rely upon them. I consider the whole account is a fabrication. The lease for a year of a property does not make sense if they were only coming for two to three months. If the appellant's husband was so determined to harm the appellant, he knew where she was for some weeks after he apparently left the house and yet he did not return. There is no indication that he is either in Pakistan or the UK. His location is completely unknown, but he has not done anything since leaving to cause the appellant any harm. The appellant's account of the incident with the photographs being taken without the veil does not stand up to close scrutiny as the appellant's husband was the photographer. I do not accept that he would wait until later before he would castigate the appellant. 30. In all, I find the appellant's account is not reliable and in the circumstances, I do not find it to be credible. I do not find she is a person who has been mistreated in Pakistan or indeed in the UK. I note the considerable body of objective evidence concerning the situation for women in Pakistan. However, I do not accept that the appellant's husband is in fact a person with whom she is genuinely in fear. I do not consider that the appellant would suffer any real risk of persecution on return to Pakistan. She can return home and live there as normal by obtaining the key from her neighbour. If the appellant's documents are to be accepted at face value, then she has been able to do what many women in Pakistan have not been able to do, namely obtain the protection of the authorities. In the circumstances, if the documents are genuine, there is no reason why she cannot obtain such state protection once again. Internal relocation is not in fact an issue in case as the appellant can return home."
"The judge found on the facts for the full reasons which he gave, the appellant's account was untrue. If she was entitled in law to do so the appeal could not succeed. On the proposed grounds for review ... 4. It was for the appellant and her representatives to put evidence before the judge in acceptable form, not to wait and see if the Home Office asked him to do so."
"It was not a question of the Home Office alleging forgery, but of the appellant failing to persuade the judge that the documents were reasonably likely to be genuine or their contents true."
"Our client's friend told her that the situation for her return is not feasible at this moment. She told her that Ms Shakeel should not return and save her life avoiding her return to Pakistan. She further told her friend that our client's father and brother were recently assaulted upon by her in laws and her family had disowned Ms Shakeel. Our client maintains that her friend met with her father who told that he is extremely against our client because they face problems at the hands of her in laws. Our client's friend informed her that her in laws are still behind our client and they have recently trespassed into her parent's house and injured her father and handicapped brother."
"You submit that: •Your client will be tortured and killed by her in-laws, who recently assaulted her father and brother. In support of this, you have submitted the following documents: [the documents are then identified]... •Your client will not be able to rely on the Pakistani authorities for protection, and will find it difficult to survive in Pakistan as a woman and no family support. [Then there are summarised the human rights grounds which are relied on]... Your submission that your client will be tortured and killed by her in-laws, who recently assaulted her father and brother, is not new material..."
"...This is because it is on the same factual basis as your client's claim that she cannot return to Pakistan because her husband will beat and kill her, ie your client claims to be at risk from her in-laws solely because of the argument with her husband. Her claim to have had an argument with her husband which led to her husband threatening to beat and kill her has already been fully considered in the refusal letter and the appeal determination in which the Immigration Judge rejects your client's account of her argument with her husband..."
"The documents you have submitted in support of your client's claim have been carefully considered. However, in considering your client's claim as a whole, in line with the principles stated, in the case of Tanveer Ahmed, little weight is placed on your client's documents"
"9. In consideration of your client's representations, the key question is whether, when these issues are taken together with the previously considered material, they create a realistic prospect of success. The question is it not whether the Secretary of State thinks that the new claim is a good one, or should succeed, but whether there is a realistic prospect that an Immigration Judge, when applying the rule of anxious scrutiny, would conclude that your client is at real risk of persecution or serious harm, or would breach her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 10. Furthermore, the Secretary of State can and indeed should treat his own view of the merits as a starting point for the enquiry. It is also clear that the Secretary of State, when addressing that question, in respect of the evaluation of the facts, and in respect of the legal conclusions to be drawn from those facts, must also satisfy the requirements of anxious scrutiny."
"12. You submit that your client fears being killed by her husband or his family if returned to Pakistan and you recount your client's claim that her husband and his family attacked your client's father and brother, resulting in your client's brother's death. 13. Your submission that your client would be killed by her husband's family, who recently assaulted her father and brother, is not new material. This is because it is on the same factual basis as your client's claim that she cannot return to Pakistan because her husband will beat her and kill her, ie your client claims to be at risk from her husband's family solely because of the argument with her husband. Her claim to have had an argument with her husband, which led to her husband threatening to beat and kill her, has already been fully considered in the refusal letter and the appeal determination, in which the Immigration Judge rejects your client's account of her argument with her husband ... [it then sets out the passage dealing with the fabrication]... 15. In relation to the documents you have submitted in support of your client's claim, while it is acknowledged that they are previously unseen documents, these two are predicated on the same factual basis as your client's claim that she cannot return to Pakistan because her husband will beat and kill her. As such they are not new material [It then sets out the principles of Tanveer Ahmed]... 17. Notwithstanding the findings as noted in paragraph 9 to 13 above, it is noted that the documents your client has submitted are not the originals. It appears that the documents are faxed versions of photocopied documents and as such the quality of the print is extremely poor and difficult to read, it is not possible to read certain handwritten dates on the documents. It is noted that no explanation has been provided as to how your client has obtained the aforementioned documents or when they were received. It is also noted that documents relating to the incident between your client's husband and your client's family were submitted with your client's previous further representations, dated8 October 2009 , and were considered in the Secretary of State's letter dated16 October 2009 . These are all matters that another Immigration Judge, applying the rule of anxious scrutiny, would take into consideration. 18. Furthermore, the Immigration Judge commented on the previous document submitted for her perusal and on the prevalence of fraudulent documents in Pakistan in her determination, stating: '...There are a number of documents before me from Pakistan but they have not been sent to the respondent in their original form for verification. It is well-known that documents are easy to forge in Pakistan and so without verification I am not prepared to rely upon them'. 19. The Senior Immigration Judge also commented on this matter in his reconsideration determination, stating: 'It was for the appellant and her representatives to put before the judge in acceptable form, not to wait and see if the Home Office asked them to do so.' 20. With regards to the submission in your letter that your client could not obtain protection from the state, the Immigration Judge also commented on this matter, stating: [It then sets out the fact that she had previously had protection from the state] ... 21. Your letter submits your client's family have not been offered protection, but it has been shown that your client has been able to obtain protection before, if her documents are accepted at face value. It is therefore considered that another Immigration Judge, applying the rule of anxious scrutiny, would consider that your client would be able to obtain state protection in the future as she successfully obtained state protection in the past. 22. For these reasons and when considering the new material in view of the previous negative credibility findings of the Immigration Judge and in line with the principles set out in Tanveer Ahmed, it is considered that another Immigration Judge, applying the rule of anxious scrutiny, would not find that your client has well-founded fear of persecution, faces a real risk of suffering serious harm on return from the UK or would have her obligations under the ECHR breached on being removed from the UK, based on the production of the documents enclosed with your letter of 21 December. 23. Therefore, it is considered that there would not be a realistic prospect of success before another Immigration Judge, applying the rule of anxious scrutiny, reversing the decision of the Immigration Judge based on the production of the documents enclosed with your letter of21 December 2009 ."
"Respected Sir, With due respect, I undersigned [and it gives the name of the father's address] beg to state that I have given an application before you but I have no yet found the Justice, I have filed an FIR crime [and gives a number] on 0710 Hours against the accused persons [and identifies them] who all Seriously Injured my Son namely [gives the name of the son] with the help of Axes and Lathis (Sticks), my son expired due to injuries on 10-09-2009, the F.I.R was lodged at the time of injuries."