A black background with a black square Description automatically generated with medium confidence
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER |
Case No: UI- 2025-000074 (PA/65292/23) LP/08158/2024 |
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 6 th of May 2025
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE
Between
SR (IRAQ)
Appellant
AND
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Mr Nadeem, Fountain Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Thompson, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Heard in Bradford on 30 April 2025
DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a national of Iraq born in 1996. He appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to dismiss his appeal on protection and human rights grounds.
2. The basis of the Appellant's claim was that whilst living in the Kurdish region of Iraq (IKR) he came to the adverse attention of the authorities when he tried to organise a demonstration against the government. This had been prompted by the arrest and imprisonment of a journalist, who was a friend of the Appellant's. Having received a tip-off from a relative who worked in the anti-terrorism branch of the security services, the Appellant fled before he could be arrested. After he has arrived in the United Kingdom he attended several demonstrations protesting against the government in Erbil, and conducted some political activity online.
3. The claim was rejected by the Respondent who did not find it to be wholly credible. Insofar as elements of the account were accepted, the Respondent did not accept that the Appellant was of a sufficiently high profile to warrant any interest from the authorities if he returned to Iraq.
4. When the matter came before the First-tier Tribunal, the Appellant gave oral evidence to the effect that since he left the IKR his family have been threatened, and his father's business has been forced to close down. The authorities demanded that he desist his political activities in the UK, which he did, fearing further consequences for his family. He closed down his Iraqi Facebook account. He fears arrest if he returns.
5. The Tribunal rejected the account and found that the Appellant would not be at a real risk of persecution by the authorities in Erbil for reasons of his political opinion.
6. The grounds of appeal raise several points but are, in essence, a 'reasons' challenge.
Discussion and Findings
7. I understand that First-tier Tribunal panels are being encouraged to produce short decisions. This can, famously, be far more difficult that producing a long one, and I have borne that in mind. I regret to say however, that in this case I found it difficult to determine what conclusions the Tribunal had reached, and why.
8. Under the heading 'findings' there is a discussion of the evidence, which in large measure simply consists of some factual statements; it is not clear from the text what inferences the Tribunal might have drawn, or what weight it attached to the material before it. The discussion of the country background material is particularly discursive, and no doubt intended to be evenhanded. The result, unfortunately, is that it is difficult for the reader to understand how that information was applied in the Appellant's case. For instance, at paragraph 14 the decision refers to the July 2023 Country Policy and Information Note which records that at the material time, there were indeed widespread protests in the IKR; high profile activists, including journalists, would be more likely to be at risk of mistreatment and imprisonment. Both of these matters broadly support the Appellant's claim about his journalist friend being imprisoned for reporting on, and supporting, criticism of the government. Nowhere is that acknowledged. The remainder of the paragraph addresses the likely fate of those who took part in those protests about pay and pensions, and about activity on behalf of political parties, neither of which are relevant to the Appellant's claim. His claim is that his journalist friend was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment and that when he tried to do something about that, he was personally targeted by the security services.
9. A second difficulty with the decision is the Tribunal's apparent failure to follow its own directions as to the applicable law. Paragraph 13 begins: "there is no requirement for corroboration in a protection claim". The next sentence reads: "there is an absence of evidence to support the Appellant's claim that he was politically active in the IKR", and this point is reiterated at the end of that paragraph. At paragraph 15 his evidence that a relative working for the security services passed information to him - in the context of IKR not an implausible suggestion - is apparently dismissed on the basis that there is "no evidence to confirm this".
10. I am also of the view that the Tribunal may in fact have misunderstood the basis of the claim, since there are repeated references to the risk, or otherwise, of persons involved in party politics. The Tribunal apparently conflates that with the concept of 'political profile'. It seems to me that an individual set on protesting the arrest of a journalist friend might have a 'political profile' even if he is not a member of any organisation.
11. Finally, any risk that the Appellant might face in the IKR as a result of his sur place activities here, is discounted on the basis that he will not have come to the attention of the authorities. Nowhere in the Tribunal's decision is there a finding on whether those activities were motivated by a genuinely held political belief. This omission is particularly striking in a case where the Appellant claims that he has desisted from political activity in the United Kingdom for fear of what might happen to his family back home: the Tribunal should have considered whether he is in fact currently exercising HJ (Iran) 'discretion' for fear of persecution of his family members.
12. It follows that the decision must be set aside in its entirety, for a failure to make findings, give reasons and to engage with the basis of the claim.
Decisions
13. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside in its entirety.
14. There is an anonymity order in this ongoing protection appeal.
15. The decision in the appeal will be remade de novo by a judge of the First-tier Tribunal other than Judge Farrelly. A Kurdish Bahdini interpreter will be required. The Appellant will be the only live witness. It will be listed in Manchester.
Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
30 th April 2025