New Coat of Arms - GCS
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER |
Case No: UI-2024-003821 |
|
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/60849/2023 |
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 4 th of March 2025
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAFFER
Between
AM
(Anonymity order continued)
Appellant
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Mr Puar of Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr Thompson a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) by CVP on 17 February 2025
Order Regarding Anonymity
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellant is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the Appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
DECISION AND REASONS
Permission to appeal
"5. The only arguable issue identified from the grounds is that set out at paragraphs 8 and 9 of the grounds which relate to the assessment at paragraph 18(v). On the face of the decision the FtTJ appears to have accepted the sur place activities as genuine. Whilst the FtTJ found that they would not have brought him to the attention of the authorities in Iran, it is arguable that the FtTJ failed to address the issue of what would happen at the "pinch point" of return based on the social media posts, albeit they were limited and low level ( applying HB (Kurds) CG [2018] UKUT 420)."
The grounds seeking permission to appeal
"8. If the approach in XX is to be followed:
4) A returnee from the UK to Iran who requires a laissez-passer or an emergency travel document (ETD) needs to complete an application form and submit it to the Iranian embassy in London. They are required to provide their address and telephone number, but not an email address or details of a social media account. While social media details are not asked for, the point of applying for an ETD is likely to be the first potential "pinch point, " referred to in AB and Others (internet activity - state of evidence) Iran [2015] UKUT 257 (IAC). It is not realistic to assume that internet searches will not be carried out until a person's arrival in Iran. Those applicants for ETDs provide an obvious pool of people, in respect of whom basic searches (such as open internet searches) are likely to be carried out.
9. The Judge finds that the Appellants activity is low level. The Judges errs in determining that low level activity would not place the Appellant at risk, as per HB (Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 430 (IAC), which states (emphasis added):
(9) Even 'low-level' political activity, or activity that is perceived to be political, such as, by way of example only, mere possession of leaflets espousing or supporting Kurdish rights, if discovered, involves the same risk of persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment. Each case however, depends on its own facts and an assessment will need to be made as to the nature of the material possessed and how it would be likely to be viewed by the Iranian authorities in the context of the foregoing guidance."
The First-tier Tribunal decision
16. The Appellant has also supplied a number of Facebook post he said he has made. They are not screenshots of the Facebook pages as is usually presented. They do not show where they were posted on Facebook, whether they can be publicly seen, and who his Facebook 'friends' are who may have shared or liked the posts further. In short, the evidence does not show any kind of extensive social media reach or activity.
Discussion
17. Based on these findings, there are no additional risk factors which, when combined with the general discrimination against Kurds in Iran, would place the Appellant at real risk of persecution: HB (Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 420 (IAC). The mere fact of an illegal exit, even combined with Kurdish ethnicity, it not enough to meet the standard of proof in this case. The incident in his village did not happen and I find he has not been brought to the attention of the authorities.
18. Concerning the sur place claim, BA (Demonstrations in Britain - risk on return) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 36 and XX (PJAK - sur place activities - Facebook) Iran CG [2022] UKUT 23 (IAC) require that a number of factors be considered. I am not persuaded it is reasonably likely the Appellant would be at risk on return to Iran for the following reasons:
(i) I accept the theme of the demonstrations was to promote and seek the downfall of the Iranian Government. That is a theme which has the potential to elevate the risk to the Appellant. It is also a factor in the Appellant's favour that he has attended a number of demonstrations.
(ii) Importantly, the Appellant had a low key and minor profile at the demonstrations. He did not organise them, nor did he speak at them. He was a member of the crowd who has carried pictures or burned them. He provided no evidence that any member of the Iranian Embassy staff or other elements of the Iranian Government may have seen him protesting.
(iii) No evidence has been provided that the demonstrations attracted any media coverage either in this country or Iran.
(iv) The Appellant does not have a political profile and is not a member of any political party, either in this country or Iran. He is not a political activist who would be subject to ongoing monitoring by the Iranian Government.
(v) It is correct the Appellant left Iran unlawfully and he is Kurd, but I have found he has not previously come to the attention of the authorities and his social media presence is very limited. Even if he did not delete his Facebook profile, the evidence before the Tribunal does not demonstrate its scale or reach and why it is reasonably likely it would come to the attention of the authorities in the event of a return.
19. Taking these factors together, I am not persuaded there is a well-founded fear of persecution on return on account of the Appellant's sur place activities."
The Respondent's position
"4. ...the FTTJ has adequately dealt with risk on return in line with the caselaw of HB (Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 420 (IAC) at paragraph 17 and throughout the determination.
5. It is submitted that it is clear that the Judge has engaged with all of the factors in assessing the appellant's risk on return in line with case of BA (Demonstrators in Britain - risk on return) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 36 (IAC) and XX (PJAK - sur place activities - Facebook) Iran CG [2022] UKUT 23 (IAC) at paragraph 18.
6. The Judge sets out at paragraph 15 that the appellant's evidence is that he attended a number of demonstrations but was not an organiser of them. He has not joined any political parties either before arriving here or whilst here. The photos provided show the Appellant attending a demonstration and participating in burning medium sized photos of Iranian figures with other men. He is not shown as speaking or leading the group in any way.
7. The Judge notes at paragraph 18 (ii) the Appellant had a low key and minor profile at the demonstrations. He did not organise them, nor did he speak at them. He was a member of the crowd who has carried pictures or burned them. He provided no evidence that any member of the Iranian Embassy staff or other elements of the Iranian Government may have seen him protesting. Further at paragraph 18 (iii) Judge highlights that no evidence has been provided that the demonstrations attracted any media coverage either in this country or Iran.
8. These findings are clearly addressing the factor 'role in demonstrations and political profile' [ BA]. The Judge acknowledges that the appellant claims to have attended demonstrations in the UK and therefore considers the 'extent of participation'. The Judge also considers that it was not suggested that any of the demonstrations the appellant has attended had attracted media coverage in the UK or Iran which is considering the factor of 'publicly attracted'.
9. The Judge also considers the appellants Facebook activity before finding that the appellant's activities in the UK would not put him at risk on return.
10. The judge gave adequate reasons why he did not find the appellant's claim that he had a political profile in Iran before he left, credible. Although it was accepted that the appellant attended some demonstrations in the United Kingdom, the judge did not find the appellant had a profile that would put him at risk on return and he was entitled to reach that finding based on the evidence before him."
Oral submissions
Discussion
Notice of Decision
15. I remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard by a Judge other than Judge Napier with findings relating to his lack of activity and profile in Iran, and his sur place activity here preserved.
Laurence Saffer
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
18 February 2025