Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000006
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/50117/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

21st May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McWILLIAM
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GIBBS

Between

SH
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms. King, Counsel, instructed by Elder Rahimi
For the Respondent: Ms. Leconte, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 30 April 2025

ANONYMITY ORDER
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 appeals a decision of the First-tier Tribunal. By the decision sent to the parties on 13 November 2024 First-tier Tribunal Judge O’Keeffe (“the Judge”) dismissed the appellant’s protection and human rights appeal.
Anonymity
2. The Judge issued an anonymity order. Neither representative requested that the order be set aside and we have decided to maintain the anonymity order. This is because the underlying claim involves international protection issues and we consider that at the present time the appellant’s private life rights, protected by Article 8 ECHR, outweigh the public interest in open justice.
3. The anonymity order is detailed above.
Background
4. The appellant is a citizen of Iraq and of Kurdish ethnicity. His initial claim for asylum made in 2016 was based on his fear of Daesh and also the PUK. This was rejected by the respondent and his appeal before the First-tier Tribunal in 2019 was dismissed on all grounds.
5. The appellant made a fresh claim for asylum on 26 July 2021. In this the appellant focused on his sur place activities in the United Kingdom (UK). It is the refusal of this application that formed the basis of the appeal before Judge O’Keeffe.
Grounds of Appeal
6. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
i) The Judge made adverse credibility findings based on erroneous dates without raising these at the appeal hearing;
ii) The Judge erred in concluding that the video viewed at the hearing was not posted on PUK media and has not therefore been identified as an opponent. Further, the Judge erred in their conclusion regarding social media monitoring by the authorities in the KRG. They did not apply WAS (Pakistan) [2023] EWCA Civ 895;
iii) The judge failed to consider the deteriorating human rights situation in the KRG;
iv) The Judge erred in their assessment of the appellant’s access to documentation on return to Iraq.
7. First-tier Tribunal Judge Mulready refused the application for permission to appeal in a decision dated 24 December 2024. However, in a decision dated 27 February 2025 Upper Tribunal Judge Ruddick granted permission to appeal.
8. On 7 March 2025 UT Judge Ruddick gave directions that the appellant upload:
(a) a table of the material updating evidence that he says has been overlooked by the FTT;
(b)an explanation of where in the evidence that was before the FTT it is clearly shown that the video on which he relies was uploaded to PUK Media; and
(c) evidence that the Facebook auto-translate function routinely changes dates, together with an application under Rule 15(2A) of the Upper Tribunal Procedure Rules to rely on that evidence.
9. The date of compliance was no later than 10 working days before the hearing (16 March 2025).
Rule 15 (2A) of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
10. The composite bundle was filed in time. This included a respondent’s Rule 24 response dated 30 March 2025. An appellant’s supplementary bundle (in response to UT Judge Ruddick’s directions) was not filed until 24 April 2025 (over four weeks late). No explanation was for lateness was provided.
11. The R.15(2A) application is, in our view, sparse to say the least: “Given the content of the UT’s aforementioned directions, we would ask for admission of the supplementary evidence under Rule 15(2A) of the Upper Tribunal Procedure Rules.” Ms. King sought to “flesh out” this application in the hearing. She submitted that the additional evidence in the form of the corrected Facebook dates and the evidence about Facebook date conversion errors had not been before the First-tier Tribunal because the appellant’s legal representatives had erred in submitting incorrect translations and had not realised their error at that time. It also appeared to us that the PUK Media link and screenshot had not been before the First-tier Tribunal who had referred solely to watching a video. Ms. King was unable to assist us on this issue.
12. We reserved our decision regarding whether we would admit the supplementary bundle. It is our decision not to admit this evidence.
13. We are satisfied that when the appellant submitted his appeal bundle to the FtT he was legally represented. Within this bundle he submitted Facebook posts with translations. In reaching her decision the Judge placed weight on the fact that some of the posts invited people to attend demonstrations that had occurred years previously. The judge found that this damaged the credibility of the appellant’s assertion that he has played a particular role in organising demonstrations. The appellant’s response to this is that the translations were generated by Facebook auto-translate and that it is a “common occurrence” for errors to occur.
14. Despite this forming part of the appellant’s application for permission evidence of this was not submitted until 24 April 2025. No explanation for this delay has been given. Further, this evidence is nothing more than an Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated document which explains why errors on Facebook translate can occur. In addition we find that the new dates provided in the translations were also AI generated and we are not therefore persuaded that they are more reliable than the Facebook auto-translate.
15. Similarly evidence of whether the video watched by the Judge at the FtT hearing was broadcast on PUK Media was submitted late despite forming a part of the application for permission without explanation. Further, we do not find that the screenshot purportedly demonstrating this achieves this aim. In addition there is no evidence about who has access to this channel, how the video was distributed (if it was) and its viewing statistics. Before us there appear to be 2 likes only.
16. Other evidence in the supplementary bundle is no more than a key passage index which refers to country background information that the appellant claims was overlooked. Again, this evidence was late without explanation.
17. We find that there has been unreasonable delay in producing the supplementary bundle of evidence. Directions were made on 7 March 2025 with a deadline of 16 March 2025. No explanation for the delay has been offered despite all the issues that it purportedly covers being raised in the application for permission to appeal. In addition we are satisfied that this is all evidence that could have been produced before the FtT and there has been no reasonable explanation as to why it was not. For these reasons therefore we do not admit the supplementary bundle into evidence.
Discussion and Reasons
18. We remind ourselves of the need for appropriate judicial restraint before interfering with a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, particularly where the fact-finding Judge has considered evidence from a variety of sources and has undertaken an evaluation of it, set in the applicable legal framework. We also remind ourselves that no decision will be perfect, that such decisions must be read holistically and sensibly, and that there is no requirement to give reasons for reasons.
19. With regards to Ground 1 we find that there is no evidence that Facebook auto-translate regularly errs. Moreover we are satisfied that if such an obvious error had been made the appellant’s legal representatives should have noticed this and remedied the problem in advance of the FtT hearing. The judge has not made any error by relying on evidence submitted by the appellant. Further, there is no evidence before us that she has acted on a mistaken understanding of the facts. Had we admitted the post hearing evidence, it would make no difference to our decision.
20. On Ground 2 we find that there is no evidence before us that the Judge made a material error of law; there is no evidence that the video was “clearly” posted on PUK Media.
21. In addition we are satisfied that the Judge made clear findings regarding the appellant’s sur place activities in the UK. She concluded that the appellant did not have a heightened profile and that consequently he would not have come to the attention of the Iraqi authorities. Ms. King submits that the Judge failed to take into account WAS (Pakistan) [2023] EWCA Civ 895 in which Laing LJ observed that direct evidence of covert monitoring and its mechanics was unlikely to be available. However, it is our view that there is no country background information that the authorities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) monitor those attending demonstrations abroad, or monitor their social media use. Although we acknowledge evidence in the “Country Policy and Information Note Iraq: Opposition to the government in the KRI (July 2023)”(CPIN) that there has been a crackdown since 2020 we find that this does not refer to those outside the region.
22. On Ground 3 Ms. King’s submission was simple; the only country background information referenced by the Judge was the respondent’s CPIN; she had therefore failed to take into account the deteriorating situation in the KRI. We are not however persuaded by this submission. At paragraph 34 the Judge specifically states that she has taken into account all country background information. In addition we find that the Judge also elaborates at paragraph 34:
“There is no evidence, to which my attention was specifically drawn, to show that demonstrations in the UK would be monitored by the authorities. Even if they are, available background material does not support the appellant’s claim to be at risk as a result.”
23. We do not find that there is evidence that the Judge made an error of law with regards to the documentary evidence that she considered.
24. On Ground 4 we are satisfied that the Judge’s findings regarding the appellant’s ability to obtain the appropriate return documentation are consistent and well-reasoned. Ms. King accepted that this ground was parasitic on the others.

Notice of Decision
25. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal does not involve the making of an error on a point of law. The appellant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

L K Gibbs
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
19 May 2025