Sufficient regard was had to religious issues which formed the core of the Pakistani family’s claims for asylum

Judicial review – telescoped hearing – Pakistani family challenging the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse them refugee status – husband refused to take part in an arranged marriage which his family had organised for him, and instead married his wife - his father is a strict Sunni Muslim who preaches in his own mosque and works for a religious organisation and runs a madrassa training young people in jihad – his wife is a Shi’a Muslim – she converted to become a Sunni Muslim immediately after her marriage – family claim persecution by reason of their religion and owing to membership of a particular social group - failure of the hussband’s family to accept the marriage between a Sunni and a Shi’a Muslim – his parents asked him to abandon his wife – attempted to coerce them into educating their children at the madrassa – his parents informed them that they intended to marry his eldest son to a cousin and their daughter to a cousin - fear their children will be taken by his ather and trained in jihad at his madrassa – his family were physically and emotionally abusive to her - account of events as given by the wife – claims rejected on grounds of lack of credibility – argued that the Tribunal Member erred by failing to make an assessment of the four children’s claims which were to be considered as part of their mother’s claim – argued that the Tribunal erred in failing to give the three eldest children an opportunity to be heard or seen before it and failed to consider the evidence of their attempted abduction or the attempts to bring them to the madrassa and train them in jihad – that the Tribunal failed to make an assessment on the intended forced marriages of the children – that the Tribunal erred by considering that protection would be available to them if they had reported matters to the authorities – that the Tribunal did not have had regard to the “individual and personal circumstances of the protection applicants” – that the Tribunal Member failed to make the best interests of the child the primary consideration in reaching his decision – that the Tribunal Member erred in law by implying in his decision in respect of the wife applied to the four children without considering their particular circumstances and adjudicating separately in relation to their personal experience and circumstances - Tribunal Member erred in failing to make any determination with regard to the failure of the Refugee Applications Commissioner to supply the applicants with written documentation in a language they would reasonably be able to understand - Tribunal Member erred in making adverse credibility findings in circumstances where the Commissioner had made no adverse findings in relation to the applicants’ identity and nationality - Tribunal Member erred in questioning their identity and nationality by reason of their failure to produce passports – argued that none of the adverse credibility findings went to the core of their fears of persecution – argued that the findings were flawed and based on conjecture - Tribunal Member’s finding that their ‘delay’ in claiming asylum was not indicative of a person fleeing their country of origin is irrational and disproportionate insofar as their application for asylum was made one day after their arrival in the State - Tribunal Member erred in failing to make a finding with regard to the religion of the husband and wife - Tribunal failed to carry out a rational analysis of the country of origin information supplied, particularly with regard to religious extremism in Pakistan – if the Tribunal did consider and rejected the country of origin information in favour of another source, the reasons for such rejection are not apparent from the decision - Tribunal Member failed to give any reasons as to why he rejected the medical reports proffered - Tribunal erred in raising credibility issues with regard to the authenticity of a Medical Report - internal relocation finding was flawed - claim that the Tribunal erred in failing to consider whether the State protection was adequate in light of the country of origin information - Tribunal Member failed to have regard to the explanations given by the husband for the failure to seek state protection and fails to provide reasons for his rejection of such explanation - Tribunal argued that the Tribunal Member made specific findings in respect of the evidence – noted that the parents were opposed to the proposed arranged marriages and to their recruitment to extremist causes - at no stage did they identify any matter in respect of which they wished their children to give evidence of their fear of persecution – wife confirmed that she wished to have her children’s claims to be considered as part of her application – she was specifically informed of the importance of bringing any fears she had for her children to the attention of the s. 11 interviewer - the failure to interview the children was not raised in the Notice of Appeal or the submissions contained therein - submitted that if it is claimed that the Tribunal failed to have regard to some aspects of their claims, they must be able to point to evidence to support such a contention - Refugee Applications Commissioner is not a respondent to the proceedings and the family are out of time to challenge his decisions - not possible to criticise the Tribunal for the fact that the children were not called to give evidence before it - a general statement by the Tribunal Member that all relevant facts and documents had been considered is such that it was not open to the court to reach a conclusion that the Tribunal had failed to consider and evaluate all material evidence.