Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER

Case No: UI-2022-005014
FtT No: PA/01175/2020

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 16th March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’CALLAGHAN

Between

RRA (IRAQ)
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Ms S Keerthy, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 5 March 2026

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
Introduction
1. The appellant appeals with permission a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his international protection and human rights appeal. The challenged decision was sent to the parties on 10 August 2022.
2. Unfortunately, this appeal has had a lengthy history before this Tribunal.
3. The error of law hearing was originally listed before a panel in the summer of 2023. I understand that the appellant was exhibiting mental health concerns and the hearing did not proceed. It is understood that he may have received hospital treatment at this time. By late 2024, the appellant had instructed solicitors who came on the Tribunal record. The Upper Tribunal issued directions in 2025 seeking to move proceedings forward. The appellant subsequently wrote to the Upper Tribunal to say he was no longer represented. However, his representatives informed the Upper Tribunal that they were still instructed. This state of affairs was reconfirmed by the solicitors in February 2026 following an inquiry made by the Upper Tribunal. However, on the day before the hearing in March 2026 the appellant’s solicitors came off the Tribunal’s record. Save for no longer being instructed, no further detail was provided, and this remains the position despite the Upper Tribunal writing and requesting further information.
4. The appellant attended the hearing. No Kurdish Sorani interpreter had been booked by the Upper Tribunal. The appellant confirmed that he was able and willing to discuss matters with the Tribunal. I was satisfied that he was able to understand proceedings conducted in the English language. There was no request for an adjournment.
Anonymity Order
5. The First-tier Tribunal made an anonymity order. No request was made by either party for the order to be set aside. I observe that the appellant seeks international protection and consider that his private life rights protected under article 8 ECHR presently outweigh the right of the public to know his identity as a party to these proceedings. The latter right is protected by article 10 ECHR.

6. The anonymity order is detailed above.
Relevant Facts
7. On his account, the appellant is presently aged twenty-five having been born on 6 November 2000. This is disputed by the respondent, who simply states that the appellant’s age is uncertain. For the respondent’s records, the appellant’s date of birth is recorded as 11 June 1998. The reason for this date being recorded is presently unclear to the Upper Tribunal.
8. The appellant states that he is an Iranian national, and an ethnic Kurd. He speaks Kurdish Sorani. The respondent believes him to be an Iraqi national.
9. The respondent has a record of the appellant attempting to gain entry to this country on 16 January 2016 under the name “Arek Baha”. He stated he was an Iraqi national born on 1 January 2000. He was unsuccessful in gaining entry to this country. There is a second record of the appellant seeking to gain entry on 27 January 2016. This time he provided a name similar to that by which he is known in these proceedings. He gave his date of birth as 1 January 1997 and asserted that he was an Iraqi national. The appellant was again unsuccessful in gaining entry.
10. The appellant arrived in the United Kingdom in or around April 2016 and has since been in this country for approaching a decade.
11. He claimed asylum on 9 May 2026, stating that he resided in Mariwan, Iran. His mother died and his father remarried. Both his father and stepmother mistreated him, and he was forced by his father to work as a child. He aided an alcohol smuggler known to his father and would travel with four others to the Iraqi border to collect alcohol, bring it back and deliver it. The money he earned was taken by his father. He was caught by the authorities in 2015 but managed to escape with two others. He hid for a few days and left the country with the aid of his uncle.
12. A Sprakab Linguistic Analysis report, dated 24 September 2019, concluded to a high degree of certainty that the appellant’s linguistic background establishes him to be from Sulaymaniyah, Iraq. The assessment further concluded that it is very unlikely that he is from Mariwan, Iran. The reasons for these conclusions are detailed within the report.
13. The respondent refused the application for international protection by a decision dated 24 January 2020. In her decision the respondent observed the linguistic analysis results. From paragraphs 33 to 38 she addressed the appellant’s assertion that his dialect had changed over time because he had been communicating with Iraqi Kurds, and that he had a roommate who was an Iraqi Kurd. It was noted that the appellant had twice sought to enter the United Kingdom prior to his entry and on each occasion he claimed that he was an Iraqi national. It was also noted that during an asylum interview held in May 2019 the appellant was asked which part of the country Mariwan was situated in and the appellant referred to the city of Penjwen which is situated in Iraq and not Iran. The appellant also informed the interviewer that he could not remember the city of Mariwan well. It was not accepted by the respondent that the appellant would struggle to the degree that he did in answering questions about a city in which contended he had resided for all of his life before leaving Iran in 2015. Further, the respondent observed the appellant’s denial as to there being a river in Mariwan, when the River Keshavarzi flows through it. When asked about nearby cities the appellant referred to Bashmark, which is a village, not a city, situated ten minutes from the Iraqi/Iranian border. It was also noted that the appellant could not name any landmarks or hotels in Mariwan and both the hospital name and school name that he provided could not be found externally.
14. Relevant to this appeal, the respondent confirmed at paragraph of her decision letter: “You will be removed to Iraq”.
The First-tier Tribunal Decision
15. The appeal came before a Judge sitting at Taylor House on 19 July 2022. The hearing was conducted by CVP. The appellant was unrepresented and the respondent was represented by a Presenting Officer.
16. The First-tier Tribunal found that the appellant is not an Iranian national, at [17]. Weight was placed upon the linguistic analysis and adverse credibility findings was made in respect of the appellant’s personal history and his knowledge of his purported home area in Iran.
17. The First-tier Tribunal concluded at [18]:
“18. Given the above and the respondent’s position that the appellant would be removed to Iraq I find that the appellant has not met the evidential burden to show that, on the basis of his acts prior to coming to the UK he would be at risk so as to be granted refugee status”.
18. The appellant raised no fear of return to Iraq despite being on notice that that was the country the respondent intends to return him to. Consequently, having found the appellant not to be an Iranian national, the First-tier Tribunal concluded in respect of his human rights appeal:
“27. In light of the above, I do not consider he would face a breach of Articles 2 or 3 ECHR if returned to Iraq.”
Grounds of Appeal
19. The grounds of appeal in this matter cause me some concern.
20. When reading them they are not drafted in a manner that this Tribunal would expect grounds of appeal to be advanced.
21. I acknowledge that the appellant is a litigant in person, but he confirmed to me at the hearing that this document was drafted by a “solicitor”, though no solicitor is named on the document. The content of the document is such that I would be very surprised that they were drafted by solicitor expert in this field. There is a real concern that the appellant has engaged with someone purporting to be a solicitor.
22. The document is written in the English language and when it was shown to the appellant at the hearing, he explained that he could not read it because it was in the English language.
23. The document runs to eight pages. It reads akin to a skeleton argument drafted in general terms and my view is reinforced by the use of sub-titles such as “Submissions” and “Does the appellant have a well-founded fear of persecution in his country of origin?” A further problem with the document is that it is obviously created using cut and paste with regular changes in font changes and indentation.
24. More concerningly reliance is placed upon the appellant having children and a wife present in the United Kingdom. It is said that though the appellant and his wife “are separated the appellant has regular contact with his children and could provide photographs of the same”. It was noted that the appellant’s children have “refugee status and therefore cannot return to Iran”. The appellant acknowledged to me at the hearing that he does not have a wife and he has no children.
25. Though internally the document variously references the appellant as being Iranian or Iraqi, it primarily relies upon him being a national of Iraq.
26. When considering whether to grant permission to appeal the First-tier Tribunal was faced with an internally contradictory document that contained significant errors of fact. The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to appeal primary on the concern that:
“Given the appellant’s claim only to hold Iranian identity documentation, it is arguable that the failure to consider the feasibility of return to Iraq and documentation is an error of law.”
27. The respondent filed a Rule 24 response on 24 October 2022. It was accepted that the First-tier Tribunal had not considered the appellant’s feasibility as to returning to Iraq but in this individual appeal that was not considered to be a material error of law.
28. The response details at paragraph 5:
“5. It is noted that the issue of returning to Iraq and obtaining the required documentation was not argued at the FTT. In addition, given the lack of credibility it cannot be accepted that the appellant does not have the required documentation or that his family are in Iraq and able to help him”.
Analysis
29. There is no express challenge to the First-tier Tribunal’s decision as to his not being an Iranian national. There is no challenge to the First-tier Tribunal’s reasoning on this issue, for example reliance upon the linguistic analysis report or his failure to provide cogent personal information as to his life in Mariwan, a city with a population of over 130,000.
30. As addressed with the appellant at the hearing the primary difficulty in this matter is that he continues to assert that he is an Iranian national and not Iraqi. At its core, the appellant does not agree with the foundation of the grounds advanced. They make a positive case as to the appellant being an Iraqi national who cannot return to Iraq. The appellant informed me, in the clearest of terms, that he is not an Iraqi national. He explained that he approached a solicitor to draft grounds of appeal for him and was asked whether he wanted to challenge the First-tier Tribunal on the basis that he is an Iranian national, or as an Iraqi national. He requested the former and informed this Tribunal that he was unaware that it had been advanced not in accordance with his instructions. He was unable to read the final document as it was in the English language.
31. In such circumstances the appellant advanced no positive case before the First-tier Tribunal, or before this Tribunal, that he does not hold relevant Iraqi documents save to the extent that he denies that he is an Iraqi national. That he is an Iraqi national has been found by the First-tier Tribunal, which was provided with no evidence and indeed no case was advanced by the appellant that he could not return to Iraq. The appellant was on notice that this is the respondent’s intention but did not address it. In the circumstances there can be no material error on the part of the First-tier Tribunal to fail to consider whether the appellant has relevant Iraqi documentation when he advanced no case to that effect before it.
32. In the circumstances the only proper conclusion to this appeal is to dismiss it.
Notice of Decision
33. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sent to the parties on 10 August 2022 does not contain a material error of law. The decision stands.
34. The anonymity direction issued by the First-tier Tribunal continues.

D O’Callaghan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

13 March 2026