Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2022-006713

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/54168/2021
LP/00107/2022

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 5 March 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEITH
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JOSHI

Between

‘MS’ IRAQ
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: The appellant did not attend and was not represented
For the Respondent: Mrs R Arif (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 3 February 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, we maintain the anonymity order made in the First-Tier Tribunal because of the risk issues raised by the appellant in his protection claim.

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
1. The appellant appeals, with the permission of Judge Boyes of the First-tier Tribunal, against the decision of Judge Elliot of the First-tier Tribunal (the ‘Judge’) promulgated on the 5th of July 2022, allowing the appellant’s appeal on humanitarian protection grounds only.
Background
2. The appellant was born in 1979, he is of Kurdish ethnicity, from the KRI and is a citizen of Iraq. At §§ 54 and 55 the Judge found the appellant to be a credible witness. The Judge accepted that in 2015 the appellant was detained by ISIS fighters, he was tortured, and during interrogation he disclosed the name of the commanding officer (referred to as ‘X’ in this decision) of his brother’s fighting unit who at the time was the Chief of Police for a major city and involved in the fight against ISIS. The appellant was released by ISIS on the payment of a ransom. In 2018 the appellant was arrested and detained until 2019 on the orders of X who believed his life was placed at risk because of the information that the appellant had provided to ISIS. After a further attack by ISIS on X, the appellant was threatened with his life by X because he still believed that it was the appellant’s disclosure to ISIS of his identity that placed him at risk. It was after this that the appellant fled Iraq.
3. At §61 the Judge found that X “continues to exercise significant influence within or over the operation of the police in the KRI and retains the rank of a senior officer”. At § 62 the Judge was satisfied that X has significant influence over the police, the KDP and can be properly “regarded as part of the state apparatus as he is able to give effect to the direction of their actions”. Accordingly, at §§ 68 and 69 the Judge found that the appellant would be at risk from X and would not be able to seek state protection or internally relocate given the influence that X has over state actors. At §70 the Judge explained his reasons for finding that there is no refugee convention reason and found that the appellant is entitled to humanitarian protection.
The appellant’s appeal
4. The appellant sought permission to appeal on the basis that the Judge erred in finding that there is no convention reason in light of the finding – as summarised at § 68 of the decision – that the Appellant is at risk of persecution by state actors, acting on behalf of X. The appellant argued that because of this the appellant is being persecuted by them due to his perceived (imputed) political opinion.
5. The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to appeal stating that there is an arguable point in that the Judge may have erred by not granting the appellant refugee status for the reasons as set out in the grounds.

The hearing before us
6. The appellant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The clerk was unable to contact the appellant or his previous representative on the contact details available. It was noted that the appellant had failed to attend the previous hearing on the 15th of November 2024 which was adjourned to give him a further opportunity to take part in the proceedings. Mrs Arif had also attended on that occasion and she had provided an updated address for the appellant – the notice of hearing was sent to this updated address on the 9th of January 2025. We were satisfied that the appellant was provided with an opportunity to take part in the proceedings and that he has not done so. We decided that it was in the interests of justice to hear the appeal.
7. On behalf of the Secretary of State, Mrs Arif opposed the appeal. She submitted that it was open to the Judge to find that there is no convention reason and that the risk from X stemmed from a personal vendetta and not because of the appellant’s actual or imputed political opinion.
Discussion and conclusions
8. We are satisfied that the appellant’s appeal does not disclose an error of law.
9. We find that the Judge provided clear and adequate reasons in his decision for why he was not satisfied that there was no convention reason in the appellant’s claim. We find that the Judge’s decision was neither perverse or irrational, and there was no misdirection of law as put forward in the appellant’s grounds. At § 70 of the decision the Judge makes clear his reasoning for finding that the appellant does not face persecution on account of his actual or imputed political opinion but rather he does so because X “seeks to eke revenge upon him for having exposed him to attack from ISIS.” We find that the Judge was entitled to find that the reason behind this has nothing to do with the appellant’s actual or imputed political opinion, rather it was because he was tortured and interrogated by ISIS into providing X’s name to them.
10. The Judge did find that X continues to exercise authority over agencies of the state and would use his power to persecute the appellant. However, the reason for doing so, as already identified, relates to his personal vendetta against the appellant. We find that there is no nexus between this personal vendetta– even if carried out on X’s command by state agents – and the appellant’s actual or imputed political opinion.

Notice of decision
The appellant’s appeal against the Judge’s decision fails and is dismissed. The Judge’s decision allowing the appeal on humanitarian protection grounds and dismissing the appeal on refugee convention grounds stands.

M D JOSHI

Judge M D Joshi
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

07 February 2025