Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-002623

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/53216/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 12 August 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BARTLETT

Between

B.H.N
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Scott
For the Respondent: Ms Clewley, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 17 July 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant and/or any member of his family, 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 and/or other person. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant made an initial claim for asylum on 2 October 2015 which was refused by the respondent on 8 February 2018. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal which dismissed his appeal in a determination promulgated on 18 June 2021 (the “2021 Determination”). The appellant made further submissions on 19 October 2022 which the respondent refused on 16 May 2023. The appellant appealed that decision to the First-tier Tribunal and all the appellant’s claims were dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal in a determination dated 1 May 2024 (the 2024 Determination) by Judge Jarvis.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by the Upper Tribunal in a decision dated 3 July 2024.
3. The grounds of appeal as set in Mr Scott’s submissions set out 4 grounds of appeal which can be summarised as follows:
a. Judge Jarvis was wrong to categorise the judge’s assessment in the 2021 Determination of the appellant’s evidence as “manifestly dishonest”. This assessment was not only wrong but it also improperly coloured Judge Jarvis’ approach to the entire case;
b. the second ground concerned what was said in the 2024 Determination about the appellant’s contact with his cousin. I will explain this in more detail below;
c. Judge Jarvis erred to say that the appellant had not genuinely tried to contact his family through the Red Cross and his finding was coloured by his conclusion that the appellant had been dishonest in the 2021 hearing;
d. Judge Jarvis erred when finding that the appellant had attended the Iraqi Embassy simply to show that he could not obtain the documents and he had not acted in good faith because the appellant had given a detailed account of his attendance at the Iraqi Embassy in a witness statement.
The hearing
4. At the hearing I sought to clarify with the parties a number of matters largely pertaining to the second ground of appeal. The representatives had had a listening appointment where they had listened to the record of proceedings. Neither party had sought to obtain a transcript of the hearing or any part of it.
5. The Home Office had produced two Rule 24 responses, the latest of which was dated 20 May 2025 and which was made following the listening appointment. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Rule 24 response set out some parts of what the record of proceedings said. I asked Mr Scott if he agreed with what was written in paragraphs 3 and 4 or if he disputed any of what was written. He confirmed that the appellant did not submit on his part any evidence as to what was said or not said at the 2024 hearing. Mr Scott referred to his note and I asked if he had any evidence if he was attempting to establish that anything that was said at the 2024 hearing was different to that set out in the rule 24 response. Mr Scott confirmed that he could not provide any evidence and he accepted that paragraph 3 of the May 2025 Rule 24 response was an accurate summary of what was said in the 2024 hearing.
6. I gave Mr Scott the opportunity to respond to Ms Clewley’s submissions and at one point he appeared to state something different from what I have set out above which would have resiled from what he had said earlier. I asked him if he made a submission that paragraphs 23 to 25 of the 2024 Determination were an inaccurate representation of the evidence before the Judge Jarvis. I asked this question a significant number of times before Mr Scott answered it and he confirmed that he did not submit that paragraphs 23 to 25 of the 2024 Determination were not an accurate representation of the evidence before Judge Jarvis.
7. In light of the above, I have proceeded on the basis that paragraphs 3 and 4 of the May 2025 Rule 24 response accurately set out what was said by the appellant in his evidence at the 2024 hearing and that paragraphs 23 to 25 of the 2024 Determination are an accurate assessment of the evidence at the 2024 hearing.
8. At the hearing I heard submissions from Mr Scott and Ms Clewley. I gave them both the opportunity to respond and the submissions are set out in full in the record of proceedings. I have largely summarised Mr Scott’s submissions above. I asked Mr Scott if he had any submissions about the materiality of the alleged errors given SMO2 [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC), the appellant would be returning to the IKR and undocumented persons who do not have family who can give them documentation do not face a serious risk of harm as is set out in section 9.1.1 of the respondent’s CPIN. Mr Scott noted that grounds three and four were weak, that his main ground of appeal was that the judge was wrong to conclude that the appellant had been manifestly dishonest at the 2021 hearing.
9. I asked Mr Scott if paragraph 22 of the 2024 Determination which purported to set out three new areas of evidence that the appellant sought to rely on to depart from the conclusions of the 2021 Determination was an accurate representation of the appellant’s case. Mr Scott confirmed that paragraph 22 of the 2024 Determination did accurately describe them. Mr Scott said that the purpose of the new evidence was to show that the appellant had been telling the truth at the 2021 hearing.
10. Ms Clewley’s submissions can be summarised as follows:
a. Ground 1 - Judge Jarvis was right to summarise the 2021 Determination’s findings as including a finding that the appellant was manifestly dishonest. Even if Judge Jarvis had erred in finding the appellant had been manifestly dishonest, this is not a material error because the appellant cannot identify any inadequate reasoning in the decision. Judge Jarvis carried out the correct assessment and considered if there were adequate reasons for departing from the finding that the appellant’s lack of contact with his family damaged his credibility. His reasons were sound and they cannot be said to be coloured by the finding that the appellant had been manifestly dishonest;
b. Ground 2 - both judges in the 2021 and 2024 Determinations had been looking at the question of was the appellant’s evidence consistent about when he had been in touch with his cousin and when he had not been in touch with his cousin. They had not considered nor decided if he had been in contact with his cousin at the 2021 hearing. This is highlighted by paragraph 53 (ii) of the 2024 Determination which sets out:

Judge Jarvis’s summary which was confirmed in the listening appointment as set out in the May 2025 Rule 24 response set out that the appellant’s evidence was that the appellant had not been in touch with his cousin in the United Kingdom, he had attempted to contact him via Facebook but had received no response. Judge Jarvis concluded that there was a discrepancy between the witness statement and the appellant’s oral evidence. This was a conclusion that was open to him;
c. Ground 3 - relating to the Red Cross evidence, taken at its highest is not material. Further, Judge Jarvis found that the appellant had failed to provide evidence to show what he claimed. The Judge assessed the evidence and made a conclusion on the lack of evidence which was open to him;
d. Ground 4 - Judge Jarvis’ finding against the appellant is that the Iraqi Embassy would not have advised the appellant as he claimed about the availability of CSID given the country background information. So far was the appellant’s argument is put that the judge was wrong to find that the appellant should have known about his area issuing CSID’s, this is a misstatement of what the 2024 Determination says and it is only a disagreement with the judge’s findings.
Decision
Ground one
11. It is not disputed that the 2021 Determination does not use the word “dishonest” and it does not use the term “manifestly dishonest”. As is recognised in the grant of permission to appeal “it may be that ‘manifestly dishonest evidence’ was a fair summary of Judge Fenoughty’s findings at paragraph 52 but the arguments need to be heard.” There is little more to the appellant’s submissions under this heading than the words “manifestly dishonest” were not used in the 2021 Determination. I do not consider that the appellant submissions were limited to paragraph 52 of the 2021 Determination and I have considered that Determination as a whole.
12. I have reviewed the 2021 Determination carefully. At paragraph 50 the Judge sets out the following:

13. The Judge then goes into considerable detail about his findings in paragraph 51 which has three detailed subparagraphs, paragraph 52 which has five detailed subparagraphs, paragraph 53 which has two detailed subparagraphs, paragraph 54 which has five detailed subparagraphs and paragraph 55 which has five detailed subparagraphs. These paragraphs and subparagraphs, which ran over three pages, set out in detail the inconsistencies in what the appellant had said such as to Dr Unigwe, the tribunal, the statement of evidence form and his substantive asylum interview. It is correct that the judge identifies many inconsistencies, contradictions and some implausibilities.
14. At paragraph 56 the judge goes on to find “the appellant’s evidence of his contact with family members, and his documentation was highly contradictory, I do not consider his evidence of these aspects of his claim to be entirely credible or reliable…” Given all that is set out in the 2021 Determination between paragraphs 52 and 56, I find that it was reasonable of Judge Jarvis to conclude that the appellant had given “manifestly dishonest evidence”. Judge Fenoughty had specifically considered and discounted the innocent explanation offered for those discrepancies namely the appellant’s age and the majority of the inconsistencies, and those that were of significant weight, were between things the appellant had said differently at different times. It is reasonable for Judge Jarvis to have drawn the conclusion in these circumstances that the appellant was dishonest in his accounts and therefore gave dishonest evidence.
15. My conclusion above is further supported by consideration of the 2024 Determination as a whole. The judge sets out a detailed consideration of the evidence before him and assesses it by reference to not only what the appellant has said previously where relevant but also to objective evidence such as in relation to the Embassy. The contention that there has been some improper “colour” in the decision from the finding that the appellant gave manifestly dishonest evidence cannot be supported. I reject this ground of appeal. I will expressly record that there has been no submission that there has been any bias.
Ground two
16. I have set out above a detailed account of the appellant’s submissions in this area because I was careful to try to understand Mr Scott’s submissions. In summary, he accepted that the May 2025 Rule 24 response is an accurate summary of the appellant’s evidence at the 2024 hearing. He also accepted that paragraph 23 and 25 of the 2024 Determination were an accurate reflection of the evidence at the 2024 hearing. These set out the following:

17. At one point Mr Scott submissions seems to turn on a submission that the appellant had not said that he was not in contact with his cousin at the 2021 hearing but that he had said that he was not in contact with his cousin at the time of the 2021 hearing. I found this distinction difficult to support in light of all the documents that I have referred to and the entirety of the submissions in this area.
18. The grant of permission set out “Judge Fenoughty clearly recorded that ‘the appellant had said he was in contact with his cousin through Facebook after arriving in the UK’ (para 53(ii)) and this finding does not seem to have been challenged. This sits uneasily against the Judge’s finding at paragraph 25 that ‘the appellant claims that he never said that he had contact with his cousin from the UK during the 2021 hearing’ and suggests to me that there may have been a mistake”. However, Mr Scott confirmed to me in response to my question that paragraph 25 was an accurate representation of what the appellant had said at the 2024 hearing. It is clear that Mr Scott cannot maintain his submission in the circumstances.
19. I find that given the acceptance that the May 2025 Rule 24 response which sets out at paragraph 3 “A confirmed he thought that evidence would be sufficient and reaffirmed that at the 2021 hearing he did not say he was in contact with his cousin.” and the concessions made by Mr Scott, ground 2 must fail.
Ground three
20. Paragraph 29 of the 2024 Determination sets out that the appellant failed to provide evidence of the details, photographs or explanation relating to the Red Cross trace the face tool. I find that this was a finding that was open to the judge on the evidence before him. I do not consider that this is coloured by the categorisation of the appellant’s evidence in the 2021 hearing as manifestly dishonest (including at paragraph 30). The finding was open to the judge on the evidence before him.
21. In any event this could not be a material error even taken at its highest. It must be remembered that the 2021 Determination found the appellant had faced abuse at the hands of his father and stepmother as a child but given that he was returning as an adult he would be able to form a life free of risk from them.
Ground 4
22. Paragraph 35 of the 2024 Determination sets out that the judge found that, given country information, “it is simply not credible that the Iraqi embassy in the UK would have told the appellant that he could obtain a CSID document in August 2022 if the appellant had given them accurate information as to his home area in Iraq.”. This was a finding that was open to the judge given the unchallenged country evidence before him. There is no evidence that there was any colour to this assessment from the finding elsewhere in the judgement that the appellant had given manifestly dishonest evidence in the 2021 hearing.
23. Further, as set out above I find that even taken at its highest this could not be a material error of law. The appellant would be returning to the IKR and those returning undocumented do not face a risk because of that.
Conclusion
24. The appeal fails on all grounds.
Notice of Decision
The Decision of the First Tier Tribunal dated 1 May 2024 does not contain an error of law.

J Bartlett

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

25 July 2025