Court rules applicants do not have to give direct evidence to show they are being watched . Case centered on the application of an individual who claimed he faced risk in Pakistan due to his involvement with the UKbased faction of Muttahida Qaumi Movement .
The man has simply been identified by his initials WAS . The Court of Appeal said that the Upper Tribunal was not cautious enough about the knowledge of the Pakistani authorities and the resultant risk . It noted that the risk to a member of MQM would depend on whether he had come to the attention of intelligence agencies .
The authorities are now better at monitoring social media. It was likely that the authorities would be waiting for that person at the airport. That there was no arrest warrant would make no difference. The judgment noted that a person was from Hyderabad and it was plausible that he made contact with MQML in London.
It observed that it was likely to be plausible that it made contact. The judgement noted that he was plausible. It also noted that there was a person from Hyderababad and that he had made contact to MQLM in London and that there were no arrest warrants would make a difference.
It said that a Pakistani state organisation can identify foreign posts on social media and hand over an article by a journalist to investigation agencies. If a proAltaf Hussain tweet is posted and its author cannot be identified. It is likely that there is no arrest Warrant would make No arrest warrant.
It stated that There was No arrest Warrant. It concluded that there would be no arrest. There was no Arrest Warrant. There is no Arrest warrant. The decision. It acknowledged that it would makeNo Arrest Warrant would. It noted . The decision was made.
