Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-006008

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/02108/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 9th Of December 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’BRIEN

Between

KSG
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Josephs of Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms S Rushforth, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre on 20 October 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. The appellant appeals against a decision of the First-tier tribunal (FtT) dated 7 July 2024 dismissing his appeal against the respondent’s refusal dated 8 December 2023 of his protection and human rights claim.
2. The appellant claimed to have been in a relationship for 3-4 years in Iraq with a woman called Rezan. His case was that Rezan’s cousin (AZ) was against the marriage (wanting to marry her himself), and that he would be at risk on return of being killed by the cousin or the cousin’s father (FZ), who it was said was a senior army officer with power and reach in Iraq. The appellant also claimed to be at risk on return for political reasons; however, the FtT’s conclusions on that claim are not challenged and so it is unnecessary to consider it further.
3. The FtT did not accept that the appellant was, taking his claim at its highest, the member of a particular social group (PSG). Neither did the FtT accept that the appellant would be of continued interest to AZ or FZ, or in any event that he would be unable to relocate internally to avoid any risk from them.
4. The appellant applied for permission to appeal on two grounds: that the FtT had unfairly refused to adjourn the hearing for him to obtain expert evidence; and that the FtT had given inadequate reasons for: (i) rejecting the appellant’s claim to be a member of a PSG and (ii) concluding that the appellant would no longer be of interest or could relocate internally. Permission was granted only on the latter ground: that the FtT had given inadequate reasons for concluding that the appellant would no longer be of interest or could relocate internally
5. Mr Josephs submitted that, having extensively rehearsed the appellant’s evidence prior to the hearing, the FtT failed adequately to explain why rejecting one aspect of the appellant’s evidence at the hearing was sufficient to find that FZ did not have the power or reach claimed. Whilst not conceding either point, Mr Joseph recognised that the appellant’s argument on continued interest (that background evidence suggests that time does not affect matters of honour) was undermined by the FtT’s apparent finding that the claimed risk was not from honour violence. He also recognised that, if either one of the findings challenged in ground 2(ii) were safe, an error in the other would be rendered immaterial.
6. Ms Rushforth submitted that the FtT was obliged to give only sufficient reasons to understand the outcome, that the FtT had done so and that the decision did not, therefore, involve any error of law. She argued that any error of law was immaterial.
Consideration
7. The FtT set out the appellant's evidence in [15]-[17] thus:
‘15. It is useful to summarise the appellant’s evidence chronologically as provided in his various interviews and statements. In the SCR (2021), the only reason the appellant gave for coming to the UK is that the family of the girl he loved did not like him and shot at him twice. The appellant did not mention having any problems due to his participation in the Kurdish referendum. In WS2 (2022), the appellant again gave the same reason as in the SCR for leaving Iraq. Further details included the girl’s name (Rezan) and that Rezan’s cousin stated that he wanted her for himself and if the appellant did not stay away, he would kill him. The cousin’s father was a “very high ranked person” with the name of FZ. The appellant added that he had to leave the Iraqi army after September 2017 as he took part in the Kurdistan referendum in September 2017. No mention was made of any arrest warrants. In ACQ (June 2023) the appellant stated that he left the army after September 2017 because he took part in the Kurdistan referendum in September 2017. No mention was made of any arrest warrants.
16. At AIR1 (September 2023), the appellant stated that he met Rezan in month 6 of 2017 in Sulaimaniyah. The appellant approached her parents who were very kind people three times to ask to marry her. His first approach was at in 2019 and they were happy with him. The second time her parents were still happy but needed some time to think about it. The third and last time was in 2021. Rezan called him in May to bring older people in his family to prepare the proposal. His problems then started with her cousin and her uncle (the cousin’s father FZ). Her cousin called him and said it was not possible for women in his family to marry an outsider and that he wanted her for himself. He threatened the appellant three times over the telephone. On 27 August 2021, the appellant on his way home saw some cars around his house which he knew belonged to FZ and gunshots were directed at him. FZ was a general in charge of city security. The appellant was never threatened by FZ directly. On 28 August 2021 the appellant fled to Erbil where he stayed with a friend of his uncle until 9 September 2021. He cannot move to a different part of Iraq as FZ is very powerful and has connections. At the end of AIR1 he added that he had a political case as he was an officer in the Iraqi army but was not questioned further by the respondent.
17. In AIR3 (November 2023), when asked who he feared in Iraq, the appellant replied the son of FZ whose name is Alyan (AZ). The last time he had contact with him was in August 2021. They resided in Sulaimaniyah City and FZ was the head of Asayesh, the security organisation apparatus. AZ objected to the appellant’s relationship with Rezan as he wanted her for himself and also that she should not marry somebody outside their tribe (Q45). The appellant also cannot return to Iraq as he has three arrest warrants against him from the Iraqi government due to his participation in the Kurdish referendum whilst he was an officer in the army. They are dated 13 February 2018, 3 July 2019 and 2 February 2020 (Q67). It is against Iraqi law for him as an officer in the army to attempt to divide the country. He does not have a copy of the arrest warrants but was informed about them by one of his colleagues. He therefore cannot relocate to another part of Iraq. His uncle organised and paid for the journey to the UK as he is a wealthy businessman in Kurdistan. The appellant was asked before the interview ended whether everything had been covered in relation to his claim for asylum. In WS2 (June 2024), the appellant stated that he is a member of a PSG, namely a man who fears honour killings. FZ’s father (sic) is a general in the army and was a Peshmerga. He is also known as Faiq Chuchani. A video link from facebook is provided to show “the power that this family has”. He is unable to obtain a copy of the arrest warrants against him.’
8. The FtT’s conclusions on the power and reach of FZ are to be found at [19]. The relevant passages are:
‘The appellant claims that he cannot re-locate to outside his local area or Sulaimaniyah (elsewhere in the IKR) due to the power, influence and connections of FZ. The video link/transcript which the appellant has provided is a short interview with a lieutenant Fayeq Chuchani (FC) who it is stated was in charge of the Kurdistan government’s oil fields of Kirkuk. The date of the interview is unclear. I am not satisfied that FC is the same person as FZ (as per the appellant’s oral evidence at the hearing) who he previously described as a general in charge of security in Sulaimaniyah city in AIR1 and AIR3. I am not satisfied that the appellant has not embellished FZ’s reach outside Sulaimaniyah… I am not satisfied that the appellant would be at risk if he re-located to another area of the IKR such as Erbil where he has close family… ‘
9. I should note that it is tolerably clear that the appellant asserted in paragraph 5 of his witness statement dated 10 June 2024 that FC is the same person as FZ. However, the FtT does not suggest that the claim is undermined by it not having been raised before the hearing and so, even if the FtT had misunderstood that to be the case and even if that had been raised as a ground of appeal, it would have been immaterial. As it is, the identity and influence of FZ was key to the appellant’s case. The reasons why the FtT rejected the claimed identity of the individual feared by the appellant are entirely clear and adequate. It follows that the consequential rejection of the appellant's claim that the individual was one with power and reach beyond Sulaymaniyah and into Erbil was open to the FtT and also adequately reasoned.
10. For these reasons, the challenge to the FtT’s reasons on internal relocation fails.
11. As properly accepted by Mr Josephs, that is enough to dispose of the appeal. However, I am also unpersuaded that there was any error in reasoning for the FtT’s conclusion that the appellant would not still be at risk from FZ in any event. That conclusion is, again, set out in [19] thus:
‘…I am not satisfied that … the re-located appellant would be of any interest to FZ or AZ four years after leaving the immediate area. The appellant has not revealed whether Rezan did indeed marry AZ after he left (although he spoke regularly to his mother who lived in the same neighbourhood until her recent death).’
12. The grounds argue that the FtT failed to take into account evidence: that the passage of time does not affect matters of honour; that male victims of honour disputes are much less likely than women to find protection from the state; and that the power and influence of a family who has been offended (in matters of honour) may be stronger than the police.
13. The FtT’s conclusions on membership of a PSG are set out at [18]. Of particular relevance are the following findings:
‘The appellant’s evidence was that Rezan’s parents were happy with the marriage but that her cousin wished to marry her himself…There is no evidence before me of a historical blood feud between their respective tribes or a tribe member being killed and injured or the appellant having disrespected Rezan—he honourably requested her hand in marriage from her parents who were not unhappy with the proposal.
14. Whilst the FtT appears in the paragraph to have rejected the appellant’s submission that male targets/victims of honour violence constitute a PSG in Iraq, it is clear that it rejected the appellant’s claim to be such an individual in any event.
15. Consequently, there was no need to take into account evidence rendered irrelevant by those findings of fact, let alone for the FtT to deal with that evidence expressly in its reasons. It follows that ground 2(ii) does not disclose an error of law.
16. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Notice of Decision
1. The FtT’s decision did not involve the making of an error of law and so stands undisturbed.

Sean O’Brien

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

5 December 2025