Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005404

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/55049/2023
LP/05506/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

9th June 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LOUGHRAN

Between

SH
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M Mohzam, Counsel instructed by Burton & Burton Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mrs R Arif, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 28 April 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
Introduction
1. The appellant is a national of Iran who was born on 7 May 2005. He arrived in the UK on 23 May 2022, when he was 17 years old and claimed asylum.
2. By a decision issued on 5 March 2025, I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the refusal of his protection and human rights claim.
3. I preserved the First-tier Tribunal’s findings rejecting the appellant’s account of what had happened to him in Iran. It was agreed at the resumed hearing on 28 April 2025, that the issues I am required to determine are as follows:
a) How many demonstrations has the appellant attended in the UK?
b) Does the appellant’s political activity reflect genuinely held political views?
c) Does his attendance at UK demonstrations put him at risk on return?
d) Do the appellant’s Facebook posts put him at risk on return?
e) Does the appellant’s illegal exit from Iran put him at risk?
4. After a hearing on 28 April 2025, I now re-make the decision.
5. As this is a protection appeal an anonymity order was made at the outset of these proceedings. There was no suggestion by either party that the anonymity order should be lifted. I am satisfied that the anonymity order should continue on account of the protection issues in this appeal.
The Hearing
6. Prior to the hearing, I agreed for the hearing to be heard via Cloud Video Platform (‘CVP’), so that the appellant, who does not live London, could be supported by his social worker during the hearing.
7. The appellant appeared by CVP. His social worker was sitting beside him and they confirmed that there was no one else with them.
8. The appellant filed and served a bundle of updated evidence, which I admitted under Rule 15(2)(a) The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. Mr M Mohzam confirmed that the appellant continued to rely on the evidence before the First tier Tribunal. Mrs Arif confirmed that the respondent continued to rely on the bundle the respondent had produced before the First tier Tribunal.
9. The appellant adopted his witness statements dated 7 November 2023 and 24 April 2025.
10. In his recent witness statement the appellant explained that in addition to the four demonstrations he had attended at the time of his first witness statement he had also attended a further ten demonstrations. He provided the date of the demonstrations with the approximate number of people in attendance. He explained that all of the demonstrations had taken place in front of the Iranian embassy in London. It was the appellant’s account that he led chants on microphones at demonstrations and he held placards and photographs of Kolbars and Kurdish leaders who had been killed. In addition, to the demonstrations outside the Iranian embassy the appellant explained that on 31 March 2024 and 31 March 2025 he had attended an event to commemorate the anniversary of the martyr Qazi Muhammad. The appellant said that at every demonstration he saw staff from the Iranian embassy recording them and he believes that they would have got a very clear picture of his face. The appellant states that his Facebook profile is public and that he posts about Kurdish executions and criticisms of the regime as well of pictures of himself at demonstrations. He explained that he does this because he wants to show the world how the Iranian regime are treating people and that Kurdish people help him translate the posts into English. The appellant explained that he had to flee his country because of the regime and that gives him a personal motivation to fight against the regime. When he was in Iran he could not see the terrible things the Iranian regime did, but now he was in the UK he had seen many things that made his opinions grow stronger. Although he was not allowed to have the Kurdistan flag or study in his own language in Iran, what really affects him are the executions and torture of young people and Kolbars. Those incidents make him very angry for his people.
11. The appellant was not asked any additional questions in examination in chief.
12. In cross examination, the appellant stated that before what had happened to him in Iran he had not been politically active. He said that since coming to the UK he felt that it was his “duty to show the real face of Iran” because he is free to say what he can. He has attended demonstrations because it is his right to show what is going on for Kurds in Iran. He does not know who organises the specific demonstrations, but the details are posted on Facebook. The Kurds from Iran all know each other and speak to each other and he has spoken to people who have organised demonstrations. At the demonstrations they hold photos and are seen. The appellant said that he is a normal supporter and the first time he used Facebook was after he came to the UK. Before he came to the UK, he could read, but not write in Kurdish and did not know any English. A friend who can read and write English helped him set up his Facebook account. His friends write and explain posts for him. He understands everything that has been posted on his Facebook account. The appellant copied approximately 20 of the printouts that he is holding in the photograph of the demonstration. He handed them to others at the demonstration. The appellant took photographs of himself at the demonstrations to show people what has happened to him. He is sure the authorities have seen him because he sees them at the windows filming and taking photographs of them. The appellant said that he has provided a photograph he took of someone photographing them from a window which is in the bundle. The appellant thinks that they would identify him from the crowd because they send photographs to Iran, they search and they will know who it is. The appellant does not know how they do it. The appellant would not just be identified because of his Facebook account, so even if he closed the account they would still know who he was. The appellant thinks that they already know everything about him.
13. In re-examination, the appellant confirmed that the purpose of him attending demonstrations in the UK, is to show the whole world that what is happening to the Kurds in Iran should not be happening and that he had taken the photograph of the women in the window of the embassy, but his friends had taken other photographs.
14. I heard submissions from Mr M Mohzam and Mrs R Arif, which I have considered with the written pleadings, decision and all the evidence.
Findings and Conclusions
15. The appellant bears the burden of substantiating the primary facts of a protection claim. The standard is a reasonable degree of likelihood (sometimes referred to as a realistic possibility).
16. I have considered the relevant country guidance cases: BA (Demonstrators in Britain – risk on return) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 36, SSH and HR (illegal exit: failed asylum seeker) Iran CG [2016] UKUT 00308, HB (Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 430 and XX (PJAK, sur place activities, Facebook) Iran CG [2022] UKUT 00023.
17. I have also considered the relevant Respondent’s Country Policy Information Notes on Iran:
Social media, surveillance and sur place activities, April 2025, Kurds and Kurdish Political Groups, May 2022, Illegal Exit, May 2022.
18. My starting point must be that I should approach the appellant’s evidence with a degree of caution because he has been found to have contrived a false narrative about the events he claims caused him to flee Iran. However, I must also keep in mind that credibility can be nuanced and multi-faceted in that a witness may lie about, or exaggerate, certain matters while remaining truthful about others. It would be wrong to adopt an overly restrictive approach that his evidence about his motives for expressing political opinions in the UK are false solely because he has been untruthful about what happened to him in Iran.
19. I bear in mind, that the appellant was a child before he left Iran and when he claimed asylum. I have considered the guidance in the Joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010: Child, vulnerable adult and sensitive appellant guidance. However, I note that the appellant was 18 years old at the time of his substantive asylum interview and at the date of the hearing he was 19 years old.
20. I have taken account the appellant’s failure to claim asylum in France under Section 8 of the 2004 Act. The appellant’s failure is not determinative of my assessment of his credibility. [JT (Cameroon) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 878] The appellant was a child at the time, and I find that his failure attracts less adverse weight than if he was an adult. [KA (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 914] I note that the respondent considers that the appellant has provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to claim asylum in France and although section 8 applies she finds that it does not damage his credibility.
21. I am satisfied that the appellant has attended all the demonstrations that he has claimed to have attended in UK i.e. 14 outside the Iranian embassy from 7 May 2023 – 6 April 2025. I also accept that the appellant attended two events to commemorate the anniversary of Qazi Muhammad. The appellant’s account to have attended these demonstrations is supported by photographs which show the appellant openly holding placards that are critical of the Iranian regime and speaking into microphones and megaphones. The appellant describes making copies of a printout to hold at a demonstration and distribute to others. I am satisfied that the appellant actively participates at the demonstrations and is a regular participant.
22. I find the appellant’s evidence regarding his reasons for being politically active in the UK convincing. His oral evidence was compelling and passionate and chimed with the plausibility of a Kurdish Iranian man being inclined to be politically active against a regime which HB (Kurds) makes plain has long discriminated against the Kurdish population.
23. I am satisfied that the appellant’s attendance at 14 demonstrations over a period of 2 years, his behaviour at those demonstrations in combination with his compelling oral evidence demonstrates genuinely held anti-Iranian regime political beliefs.
24. The appellant has provided evidence from his Facebook account. However, he has not provided a full download of his Facebook profile in accordance with the guidance provided by XX and there are clear deficiencies in this evidence. The evidence does not demonstrate whether the appellant’s account is public or private, how many ‘friends’ the appellant has on Facebook or how many ‘comments’ or ‘likes’ any posts have received. I am therefore unable to gage how widely the appellant’s posts have been seen. However, having accepted the appellant’s political activity in the UK is motivated by his genuinely held political beliefs I am also satisfied that his Facebook activity is motivated by the same and is not to bolster his claim. I also accept the appellant’s evidence that he understands everything he has posted on Facebook. As this is case, applying XX and in particular paragraphs 98 and 102 I am satisfied that the appellant should not be required to delete his Facebook account and conceal his political opinion when he is questioned on arrival in Iran.
25. It is accepted that the appellant is an ethnic Iranian Kurd who exited Iran illegally. This alone would not be sufficient for his claim to succeed. However, I am satisfied that this in combination with his committed political opposition to the Iranian regime creates a real risk of serious harm from the Iranian authorities at the pinch point of his arrival in Iran. I find that the appellant would be questioned on arrival as a failed asylum seeker. He could only avoid adverse interest by lying about his sur place activity and his genuinely held political opinion and by deleting a genuine Facebook account critical of the Iranian regime.
26. I am also satisfied that having done so in the UK, the appellant would wish to continue his political activism upon return to Iran and would only refrain from doing so because of the persecution he would be likely to endure as a result. Applying the country guidance and HJ (Iran) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 31 principles, the appeal succeeds on Refugee Convention grounds.
Notice of Decision
The appeal is allowed on Refugee Convention grounds

G. Loughran
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

30 May 2025