PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has rejected the pleas of a former judge of Afghanistan’s Supreme Court, a female social activist and an official of former Afghan intelligence directorate as well as their family members for protection against their arrest and deportation by Pakistani law-enforcement agencies.

A bench consisting of Justice Wiqar Ahmad and Justice Kamran Hayat Miankhel rejected petitions field by former judge Abdullah Muhammadi, former employee of the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS) Abdul Qayyum Omerzai and female Afghan social activist Fahima Safi, who requested that they and their family members be allowed to stay in Pakistan due to threats from the present Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Abdullah Muhammdi’s counsel said that the petitioner was a former judge of the Afghan Supreme Court and a member of the Afghan Judges’ Association. He added that he and his family members had entered Pakistan on a valid visa.

The counsel claimed that on account of his judicial service, the petitioner had received threats from the Taliban, placing the lives of the petitioner and his family members at risk if they returned to Afghanistan.

Petitioners fear persecution on return to Afghanistan

He submitted that the petitioner had approached the Society for Human Rights and Prisoners’ Aid (SHARP) for refugee processing and that his pre-screening interview before UNHCR was still pending.

The lawyer contended that despite their lawful stay and pending refugee processing, the petitioners were under constant apprehension of arrest and deportation in view of the ongoing measures concerning Afghan nationals.

He sought directives of the court for the respondents including the federal government that no coercive action be taken against them until their refugee claim was considered by authorities.

“The petitioners have failed to place on record any document conferring a lawful or permanent status in Pakistan, any refugee status recognised under the domestic legal framework, or any enforceable legal right entitling them to remain in the country,” the bench declared.

It added that the controversy in the present petition related to the petitioner’s claim for protection against deportation on the basis of an alleged pending UNHCR resettlement process.

“Mere registration as an asylum seeker or pendency of proceedings before the UNHCR, however, does not, by itself, create any vested or enforceable right to continue residing in Pakistan in absence of recognition by the competent authorities under the applicable municipal law.”

The bench pointed out that the petitioners had neither produced any recommendation by the UNHCR for third-country resettlement nor placed on record any communication from a foreign embassy or other competent authority demonstrating that their resettlement process had reached a stage warranting such protection.

“Likewise, no credible material has been produced to establish the existence of a present, real, and imminent threat to their life or liberty in Afghanistan so as to attract the principle of non-refoulement. Consequently, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for issuance of a constitutional writ,” it ruled.

Fahima Safi’s lawyer said that his client and her family members were Afghan nationals who entered Pakistan on valid visas and had also applied online for extension/renewal of their Pakistani visas.

He said that petitioners had applied for resettlement in the United States of America under the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) in the year 2023 and that their applications had still been pending.

The counsel said that Ms Safi was employed with the Child Fund Afghanistan, a global child protection agency, and was recommended for an Afghanistan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV).

He relied upon an email purportedly issued by Congresswoman Kat Cammack indicating that the petitioners’ refugee case was nearing completion.

The bench ruled that mere pendency of an application for resettlement, refugee admission or Special Immigrant Visa before the authorities of a foreign State didn’t confer upon a foreign national any enforceable legal right to remain in Pakistan indefinitely, nor did it create a legal embargo against the competent authorities from regulating the stay of foreigners in accordance with the laws of Pakistan.

“Likewise, the employment of the petitioners with organisations operating in Afghanistan, the recommendation for the Special Immigrant Visa, the correspondence from foreign authorities or elected representatives, and the alleged threats claimed by the petitioners do not, by themselves, create any statutory or constitutional right enforceable through the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.”

The court added that the petitioners had not pointed out any statutory provision, notification or binding policy under which they had acquired a vested legal right to continue residing in Pakistan merely because their resettlement application was pending before the authorities of the United States.

Meanwhile, Abdul Qayyum Omerzai’s counsel contended that his client had served in the NDS and on account of such service, he apprehended persecution if returned to Afghanistan.

He said that the petitioner had applied for asylum before the Embassy of Switzerland, but his application was declined through a letter on Sept 9, 2024.

While rejecting his plea, the bench ruled that no material had been placed on record to demonstrate that the petitioners possess any legal right under the laws of Pakistan entitling them to remain in the country or restraining the competent authorities from taking action in accordance with law.

“The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the constitution cannot be invoked merely on the basis of an apprehension of deportation in the absence of any enforceable legal or statutory right,” it declared.

Published in Dawn, August 8th, 2026