Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case Nos: UI-2025-000476

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/50053/2024
LP/09052/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 25 July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

RS
(Anonymity Order made)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr R Ahmed, instructed by Primus Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms C Newton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 14 July 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals, with permission, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his appeal against the respondent’s decision to refuse his asylum and human rights claims.
2. The appellant was born on 14 December 1998 in Halabja in the KRI, Iraq, and is of Kurdish ethnicity. He claims never to have held Iraqi citizenship, but to have only had an annually renewable residency card since his parents were Iranian nationals who were refugees in Iraq. He arrived in the UK clandestinely on 7 March 2020, having left Iraq on 5 September 2019 and travelled to Turkey by flight using his own passport and then travelled to Greece and France. He claimed asylum on arrival. He attended a screening interview on 9 March 2020 and a substantive asylum interview on 22 December 2023. His claim was refused on 28 December 2023 and he appealed against that decision.
3. The appellant’s asylum claim was made on several bases. Firstly, that he was at risk of being the subject of an honour killing as a result of having had an illegitimate relationship with a woman who became pregnant and had an abortion and whose family threatened him as a result. Secondly, that he was at risk as a result of not believing in Islam. Thirdly, that he feared the Iranian regime and had been accused of supporting the Komala Party in Iraq, and feared being assassinated by the Iranian authorities.
4. The respondent, in refusing the appellant’s claim, accepted that he was Kurdish and that he had had an illegitimate relationship and faced problems with the girl’s family and her tribe, but did not accept that her family had any power or influence over the state and did not accept that he would be at risk on that basis. The respondent did not consider that the appellant would be at risk for not following Islam. The respondent further did not accept that the appellant feared the Iranian authorities as by his own admission he had only ever lived in Iraq before travelling to the UK and had never lived in Iran and would be returning to Iraq where his parents were living. The respondent considered that there was a sufficiency of protection available to the appellant in Iraq in any event, and that he could also relocate to Duhok where he could obtain a KRG issued residency card as previously. The respondent did not, therefore, accept that the appellant was at risk on return to Iraq.
5. The appellant’s appeal against that decision was heard by a First-tier Tribunal Judge on 13 November 2024. The judge did not accept that the appellant was an Iranian national but found that he was an Iraqi national. The judge noted that the appellant had given inconsistent evidence about his nationality and about his passport, stating in his screening interview that his nationality was Iraqi and that he had held no other nationality, and stating that he had left Iraq using his own passport, which was entirely different to what he was currently asserting. The judge rejected the explanations given by the appellant in relation to these matters. The judge had regard to a letter relied upon by the appellant from the Komala Party but did not accept that the letter supported his claim to be Iranian. The judge also had regard to a Kurdistan Residence Card relied upon by the appellant but noted discrepancies in the document which led him to conclude that the document was not reliable. The judge therefore proceeded to consider the appellant’s claim on the basis that he was an Iraqi national. With regard to the appellant’s claim based on his relationship with a woman in Iraq, the judge accepted that there would not be sufficient protection available to the appellant from the authorities in the KRI, but concluded that he could safely and reasonably relocate to Duhok. Since the appellant was considered to be an Iraqi national, and since his political activity in the UK was against the Iranian regime, the judge did not consider any risk to him on that basis in Iraq. The judge considered the issue of documentation and concluded that the appellant would have a CSID card and that he would be able to access it through his family in Iraq. As for the appellant’s claim to be at risk as an atheist, the judge concluded that he was an atheist but did not accept that he feared persecution on that basis. The judge found that the appellant would be at no risk on return to Iraq and that his removal to Iraq would not breach his Article 8 human rights. The judge accordingly dismissed the appeal on all grounds, in a decision promulgated on 28 November 2024.
6. The appellant sought permission to appeal the judge’s decision on four grounds. Firstly, that the judge had materially erred in his assessment of credibility by placing undue reliance on the initial screening interview and the appellant’s response therein about his nationality and his passport, without having due regard to the evidence in the round. Secondly, that the judge had materially erred in his assessment of the reliability of the Residence Card. Thirdly, that the judge had erred in the assessment of his sur place activities by failing to consider the influence of the Iranian state within the KRI and the risk he would face when travelling through any PMF checkpoints given the connections of the PMU/ PMF to the Iranian government. Fourthly, that the judge erred in his findings on risk on return to Iraq by failing to consider the updated country guidance in SMO and KSP (Civil status documentation, article 15) (CG)) Iraq [2022] UKUT 110.
7. Permission was initially refused in the First-tier Tribunal, but was subsequently granted on a renewed application in the Upper Tribunal, on the following basis:
“1. It is arguable that in making findings on the appellant’s nationality and credibility, the judge failed to adequately assess the discrepancies between the answers given by the appellant in his screening interview and substantive asylum interview and appeal statement in line with YL (rely on SEF) China [2004] UKAIT 00145 and JA (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 450.
2. It is also arguable that the judge did not give adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant’s evidence about why there is a different name on his Kurdish residence card.
3. Ground 3 is only comes into play if there are material errors in the judge’s findings on nationality.
4. Ground 4 is pleaded with insufficient particularity.
5. Nevertheless, I do not limit the grounds of appeal.”
8. The respondent filed and served a rule 24 response opposing the appeal.
Hearing and Submissions
9. The matter came before us for a hearing. The hearing proceeded as a hybrid hearing following Mr Ahmed’s application made that morning. Mr Ahmed appeared remotely but the other participants were physically present at the hearing. There were initially some problems with setting up the CVP hearing but the hearing then reverted to Teams, with which all parties expressed their satisfaction. Mr Ahmed confirmed he was content with the arrangements and that the appellant was able to receive a fair hearing. We are satisfied that the hearing proceeded without difficulty.
10. Both parties made submissions before us.
11. Mr Ahmed advised us that he was not the author of the grounds and that he would focus on the first two grounds. He confirmed that he was not relying on the third ground, accepting that it relied on matters which had not been raised at the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal. Mr Ahmed submitted that the judge had erred by placing too much reliance upon evidence given at the screening interview which had been conducted by telephone and had failed to give weight to the other evidence given by the appellant in his substance interview, particularly at questions 5 and 7, and 72 to 75, and in his witness statement and oral evidence. The focus on what was said in the screening interview impacted upon the judge’s overall credibility findings. Mr Ahmed agreed that the grounds made no challenge to the judge’s findings on the risk to the appellant as a result of his relationship and his atheism.
12. Ms Newton submitted that the judge was entitled to accord weight to the appellant’s initial evidence that he was an Iraqi national and to consider that the subsequent evidence he gave was simply an attempt to retract that. The judge was entitled to have concerns about the Kurdistan Residence Card, which contained an Iranian name despite the appellant previously stating that he had not used any other name. The judge gave adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant’s explanations and was entitled to make the decision that he did.
13. Mr Ahmed, in his response, reiterated his previous submissions.
Analysis
14. It is asserted on behalf of the appellant that the judge placed too much weight upon his evidence given at his screening interview, contrary to the guidance in YL (Rely on SEF) China [2004] UKIAT 00145 and JA (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 450, and failed to take into account the fact that the interview took place over the telephone. However, whilst it is certainly the case that caution is to be exercised in reliance upon evidence given at a screening interview, the problem for the appellant in making such a challenge in this case is that he has not denied having stated what is recorded. There has been no suggestion of a misunderstanding or mistake in the recording of his answer at 1.5 and 1.6 that his nationality was Iraqi and that he had no other nationality.
15. Mr Ahmed submitted that the error made by the judge was in failing to consider the evidence at that interview against the appellant’s further evidence in his asylum interview and his statement and oral evidence. However at no point in that further evidence has the appellant ever claimed that he did not give his nationality as Iraqi and that he had no other nationality and neither, prior to the hearing, had he ever provided any explanation for his answer to the question at the screening interview. He simply changed his evidence. The judge was perfectly entitled to consider that a change in evidence some three years later, on such a significant matter as nationality, with no clarification having been provided at any earlier stage, lacked credibility. Indeed, as recorded at [15], when the appellant was directly asked the question at the hearing, he did not give an answer that addressed the question and the judge was fully entitled not to accept the answer as satisfactory.
16. The same can be said of the appellant’s evidence about his passport. At no stage at his screening interview did he ever state that he had never had a passport, despite being asked direct questions in that regard. On the contrary, at 1.8 of the screening interview, he stated that his passport was taken by the agent in Turkey and, even more significantly, at 3.3, his evidence was that he left Iraq and travelled to Turkey by air “using my own passport”. He has not denied that he said what is recorded at the screening interview. In so far as Mr Ahmed criticises the judge for considering the evidence of the screening interview in isolation, it is evident that that was not what he did. The judge, at [16] of his decision, when assessing his evidence in that regard, specifically referred to the appellant’s evidence at his substantive interview as well as his oral evidence. The judge considered that the explanation given by the appellant, namely that he had bought the passport from the agent, was not a credible one and concluded that it was an attempt to retract what was likely to have been the truth at the screening interview. We see no error in the judge coming to such a conclusion. He was perfectly entitled to do so.
17. Furthermore, it is clear that the appellant’s evidence at his screening interview was considered in the round together with the documentary evidence relied upon by the appellant. As is apparent from [17] of his decision, the judge applied the guidance in Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 439 when considering the documents relied upon by the appellant, and having done so, was willing to accept that the letter at page 538 of the stitched bundle genuinely came from the Komala Party. However he made observations from that letter and from the Kurdistan Residence Card which were fully and properly open to him. He noted that there was nothing in the letter from the Komala Party confirming the appellant’s nationality and nothing in the letter explaining the source of the information therein. The judge further noted a mis-spelling in the residence card which would not be expected of an official document and that the surname in the document was one which had not been disclosed previously by the appellant who had otherwise confirmed, at his screening interview, that he had no other name than the one provided. The judge considered the appellant’s explanation for these concerns, but rejected them for the reasons given at [20]. In light of such concerns, and having taken account of relevant country information at [21], the judge was perfectly entitled to accord the weight that he did to the documents. In so far as the grounds of appeal seek to challenge the judge’s conclusions in that regard we consider the grounds to be little more than a disagreement with the findings properly made.
18. As is evident from [23] of his decision, the judge reached his finding on a consideration of all the evidence taken together in the round, from the appellant’s interviews, statement and oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence, and we reject the assertion in the grounds that there was a failure to apply anxious scrutiny to the evidence. The judge gave proper reasons for according the weight that he did to the evidence and was fully entitled to reach the conclusions that he did. The first two grounds of challenge have not been made out.
19. As already mentioned, Mr Ahmed quite properly accepted that the third ground raised issues which had not been part of the appellant’s case before the First-tier Tribunal and he therefore did not pursue that ground. Clearly, the appellant had never previously claimed to be at risk in Iraq from proxies of the Iranian authorities. His reliance on evidence of sur place activities against the Iranian regime was presented on the basis of a fear of return to Iran which, as the judge properly observed at [34], was not relevant given the findings he had made about his nationality. As for the fourth ground, that was also not pursued by Mr Ahmed and in any event is of no merit. The judge’s decision on documentation was in accordance with the guidance in SMO 2.
20. For all these reasons we find the grounds not to be made out. As already mentioned, the judge’s findings on the honour-related issue and the appellant’s non-belief in Islam have not been challenged in the grounds. Those matters were properly determined by the judge. The judge was accordingly entitled to conclude that the appellant had failed to make out his claim to be at risk on return to Iraq. The decision that he reached was one which was fully and properly open to him on the evidence before him.
Notice of Decision
21. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve a material error on a point of law requiring it to be set aside. The decision to dismiss the appeal stands.
Anonymity Order
The Anonymity Order previously made is continued.

Signed: S Kebede
Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

17 July 2025