Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000400

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/66475/2024
LP/03844/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

15th August 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RHYS-DAVIES

Between

B S R
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms. M. Eckley of Counsel, instructed by AB Legal Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms. S. Rushforth, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre on 24 July 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellant, his partner and their children are granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including their names or address, likely to lead members of the public to identify them. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is an Iraqi national of Kurdish ethnicity, who formerly resided in the IKR. He claimed asylum on 15 May 2021. The Respondent refused his application on 4 December 2023. The Appellant appealed against that refusal and his appeal was heard by a First-tier Tribunal Judge (“the Judge”) on 22 November 2024. In a Decision and Reasons promulgated on 10 December 2024, the appeal was dismissed on all grounds (“the Decision”).
Background
2. The Appellant’s case is that he had an affair with a married woman. The Judge anonymised her as “AMI” and we will retain that for ease of reference. The Appellant states that the affair was discovered by AMI’s husband. The Appellant says he is at risk of persecution from AMI’s husband, from the husband’s family and wider tribe, and also from the KDP, as the husband is connected to that party.
3. It is important to note that in 2019, AMI made her own asylum claim on the same basis as that presented later by the Appellant, that she is at risk from her husband and those connected to him, because of her affair. The Respondent refused AMI’s claim and AMI appealed that refusal. The Appellant gave evidence at AMI’s appeal, which was heard by another First-tier Tribunal Judge (“the previous Judge”) on 2 December 2022.
4. In a Decision and Reasons promulgated on 8 December 2022, the previous Judge dismissed AMI’s appeal on all grounds (“the previous Decision”). The previous Judge concluded he could give little weight to the evidence of AMI for the reasons set out at [55]-[63] of the previous Decision, or to the evidence of AMI’s sister (see [73]-[74] of the previous Decision), or the evidence oof this Appellant (see [64] – [72] of the previous Decision). AMI’s claims of events in Iraq were rejected in their entirety at [81] – [82] of the previous Decision. There was no successful onward appeal.
5. AMI did not give oral evidence in the Appellant’s appeal, but did provide written evidence. The Appellant also put forward some evidence that had not been taken into account by the previous Judge.
6. The Judge set out his findings on the Appellant’s case at [20]-[98]. of his Decision. It is not necessary to rehearse all of them here. The following are relevant to the issues before us:
(i) The Parties agree that Appellant’s claim is brought on the same basis as AMI’s was, and the previous Judge’s findings are the starting point for the Appellant’s appeal [28];
(ii) The previous Judge made various adverse findings against the Appellant and AMI [29] and [35];
(iii) AMI’s sister gave evidence before the previous Judge, and he had placed little weight on her evidence also [36];
(iv) The Parties agree that there is new evidence in the Appellant’s appeal that was not considered by the previous Judge [32];
(v) AL (Albania) [2019] EWCA Civ 950 and Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Patel [2022] EWCA Civ 36 apply [33];
(vi) It is for the Appellant to prove that the new evidence produced is reliable, in accordance with Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 00439 [38]- [39];
(vii) The new evidence of the video clips and accompanying transcriptions, and the photographs, does not prove, to the lower standard the identities of the people in view. A middle-aged man can be seen face-on in clips 1 and 3, but there is only a silhouetted male visible in clip 2. It is not proved to the lower standard that all three clips show the same man [40];
(viii) AMI’s evidence is that the man in all three clips is her husband, but that must be assessed in the round, including the adverse findings made against her by the previous Judge [41];
(ix) Assessing the evidence in the round, there is no reason to depart from the previous Judge’s findings [42];
(x) The Appellant’s evidence is also inconsistent about whether anyone knew of his relationship with AMI while they were still in Iraq, and this must be taken into account when assessing his credibility [44] – [46];
(xi) The Appellant’s evidence that between 2012 and 2016 he would visit AMI at her home up to four times a week when her husband was out, and that no-one else knew or suspected anything until the day her husband discovered them, is not credible in the context of Iraqi and Kurdish society and societal norms [47] – [48];
(xii) The Appellant’s evidence about his contact with his family is inconsistent, and not in a minor way. This would also be taken into account when assessing his credibility [49]- [51];
(xiii) The Appellant’s evidence about raising money to leave Iraq with his uncle’s help, and how his uncle would be repaid, and whether his parents knew, is also inconsistent and would need to be taken into account [52] – [54];
(xiv) The Appellant’s failure to pursue the asylum claim he made in Greece, and to claim asylum at all in France, engages Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 [80] – [82];
(xv) Drawing all matters together, there is nothing in this appeal to alter the previous Judge’s findings. Further, even in the absence of those adverse findings, the Appellant’s credibility was such that he had not proved his case to the lower standard [83].
7. The Appellant made an in-time application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, relying on two grounds.
(i) The Judge erred by addressing only the videoclips, transcripts and photographs as “new evidence”. The Appellant had produced further new evidence: photographs of him and AMI together in Iraq; summonses and translations thereof; threats received on Facebook; and Facebook “chats”, which the Judge had failed to make findings on;
(ii) Contrary to the Judge’s finding that the identities of the people shown in the video clips could not be proven to the lower standard, the transcripts of the second and third clip each include a name of one of AMI’s children. The Judge therefore erred in rejecting this evidence without providing adequate reasons.
8. On 28 January 2025, another First-tier Tribunal Judge granted permission to appeal on both grounds.
9. The Respondent filed and served a r.24 Response on 8 February 2025, stating that the appeal was opposed. The Respondent contends that the Judge did not need to expressly refer to each piece of evidence, and that it was clear that, when the Decision was read as a whole, all matters had been considered. The Respondent argues that the Judge’s findings were open to him, for the reasons he gave.
10. The Upper Tribunal then made Directions to bring the appeal to a hearing before us.
The Hearing
11. Ms. Eckley had not seen the r.24 Response. Ms. Rushforth provided her with a copy and, having had an opportunity to read it, Ms. Eckley was content to proceed.
12. In order to assist the Parties, we stated our preliminary view that it was difficult to identify a material error of law in the Decision. As the r.24 Response notes, First-tier Judges are not required to refer expressly to every piece of evidence. Second, there are a number of adverse credibility findings that have not been challenged. Third, Volpi & Anor. v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464 makes clear that an appellate court or tribunal must not interfere with a judge’s conclusions on primary facts unless satisfied he was “plainly wrong”.
13. Ms. Eckley relied on both Grounds and made helpful brief submissions. Ms. Rushforth relied on the r.24 Response and made helpful brief submissions in reply. Ms. Eckley did not wish to respond to Ms. Rushforth.
14. Having heard the Parties and retired for a short while, we returned to inform them that the appeal would dismissed. Despite Ms. Eckley’s best efforts, we are not persuaded that the Judge materially erred, for the reasons we indicated at the outset.
Decision
15. There is no material error of law in the Decision, for the following reasons.
16. The Judge states at [15] – [16] and [21] that he has considered all of the materials before him and correctly states that he need not expressly refer to every piece of evidence or submission when reaching his findings.
17. We did not identify, and Ms. Eckley could not take us to, anything in the Decision that indicated that the Judge had not considered the evidence referred to in Ground 1, other than the absence of any express reference to it.
18. Volpi makes clear that the failure to mention a piece of evidence is not sufficient to show a judge has overlooked it and, absent a compelling reason to the contrary, an appeal court should assume all evidence was taken into account. There is no compelling reason in this case.
19. In terms of Ground 2, the Judge did provide adequate reasons for his findings on the video evidence, when considered in the round. The informed reader, who would know the other adverse findings made against the Appellant and AMI by the previous Judge, as well as by the Judge, would understand the Judge’s findings on the video clips and his reasons for reaching them. Disagreement by the Appellant is not enough.
20. We further find that the Judge’s other adverse findings, which are unchallenged and which were properly based on the previous Judge’s findings, mean that even if the Grounds had some merit, it cannot be said that his conclusions are “plainly wrong”.

Notice of Decision
1. The Judge’s decision did not involve the making of an error of law.
2. The Judge’s decision stands and the Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.

A. Rhys-Davies

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

25 July 2025