Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-004492

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/51906/2023
LP/05254/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 24th of June 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANDES
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JOSHI

Between

SS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Eaton (Garden Court Chambers)
For the Respondent: Ms Simbi (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 2 May 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
1. These written reasons reflect the decision which was given to the appellant and the respondent at the end of the hearing.
2. The appellant, with the permission of the First-tier Tribunal, appeals against the decision of a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, (“the Judge”), who, in a decision promulgated on the 23rd of August 2024, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s decision dated the 15th of March 2023 refusing his asylum and human rights claim.
Anonymity Order
3. We have made an anonymity order. We have considered the public interest in open justice, but we consider it is outweighed by the importance of facilitating the discharge of the United Kingdom’s obligations to those claiming international protection because of the need for confidentiality.
Background
4. The appellant is a citizen of Iran born in 2003. The appellant feared persecution on return to Iran because of his actual and/ or imputed political opinion – this related to his family’s involvement with the KDPI. He was informed by a family member that the Ettela'at came to his home searching for him and confiscated his belongings. He fled Iran in fear of the authorities. In the United Kingdom the appellant claimed to have been involved in sur place activities.
5. The Judge rejected the core of the appellant’s account finding that his claim was not credible at [13] to [23] of the decision. Further, the Judge found that he would not be at risk on return to Iran on account of his sur place activities.
The appellant’s appeal
6. The appellant sought permission to appeal on three grounds:
i. In respect of the appellant’s sur place activities it was argued that the Judge had not engaged with or applied the country guidance case of XX (PJAK – sur place activities – Facebook) Iran CG [2022] UKUT 00023 (IAC);
ii. It was argued that the Judge erred in their approach to the country and psychiatric expert reports by making credibility findings without considering this evidence as part of that analysis (Mibanga v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 367)
iii. It was also argued that when considering section 8 the Judge failed to take account of the fact that the appellant was a minor when he left Iran and travelled to the United Kingdom.
7. On the 27th of September 2024, the First-tier Tribunal granted permission to appeal but limited the scope of the grant to ground one.
8. The appellant renewed the permission application to the Upper Tribunal and on the 29th of January 2025 the Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal on all three grounds.
The hearing before us
9. The appellant attended in person and had the benefit of an interpreter.
10. At the outset of the hearing Ms Simbi and Mr Eaton confirmed that they had had an opportunity to discuss the grounds of appeal. Ms Simbi accepted that the Judge had materially erred in law and that the Judge’s decision was not safe. She submitted that the respondent had already conceded Section 8 in their initial decision and that it should not have been raised by the Judge. Further, she submitted that the Judge’s approach to the country guidance case of XX (PJAK – sur place activities – Facebook) Iran CG [2022] UKUT 00023 (IAC) and the expert evidence was flawed for the reasons set out in the appellant’s grounds of appeal.
11. In the circumstances we were satisfied that the Judge’s decision did disclose material errors of law for the reasons as agreed by the representatives.
Notice of decision
The Judge has materially erred in law such that the decision is not safe and must be set aside.
There are no preserved findings.
The appeal is to be remitted to the First-Tier Tribunal for rehearing at the Birmingham Civil Justice Centre before a judge other than the First-tier Tribunal Judge who heard the appeal on this occasion.
Directions
1) The time estimate for the hearing is 3 hours.
2) HMCTS should provide the appellant with an interpreter in the language Kurdish Sorani.
3) The appellant is to file and serve any further evidence on which he wishes to rely 7 days before the remitted hearing date.

M D JOSHI

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

17 June 2025