Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000652

First-tier Tribunal: PA/62036/2025
LP/10723/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 18th of June 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PHILLIPS

Between

GM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr H Siddiq, Adam solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms C Newton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 12 June 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant, his ex-wife and their son are 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, his ex-wife or their son. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Swinnerton dated 13 November 2024 dismissing his appeal against the respondent’s decision of 6 October 2023 refusing his protection claim.
Background
2. The appellant a citizen of Iraq asserts, in summary, that he would be at risk on return due to being a member of the Peshmerga whose name was passed to ISIS which resulted in his being taken from frontline duties to a role in the munitions store. Whilst carrying out that role, the appellant asserts that two majors withdrew guns and ammunition without authorisation from the store which the appellant reported resulting in the appellant being threatened by the majors and their families forcing him to flee.
The appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
3. The appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s decision was heard in the virtual region of First-tier Tribunal on 11 November 2024 and dismissed. The Judge found the core of the Appellant’s account to be incredible and further did not accept that he was no longer in contract with his family.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
4. The appellant was granted permission to appeal the decision by First-tier Tribunal Judge Murray on 5 February 2025.
5. The appellant raises two grounds. The first argues that the judge failed to consider material evidence. This evidence came from the Ashti Organisation and is included in the Appellant’s bundle but not referred to in the decision.
6. The second ground argues that inadequate reasons were given for the finding that the Appellant was no longer in contact with his family particularly as no questions were asked in this respect in cross examination.
The hearing
7. Ms Newton conceded the first ground but not the second. In this respect Mr Siddiq said that the grounds were connected but that in any event the finding despite no questions being asked during oral evidence was inadequately reasoned and unfair.
Findings – Error of Law
8. I am satisfied that the judge failed to take into account material evidence from the Ashti Organisation and that Ms Newton was correct to concede in this respect. This evidence, if accepted, would have corroborated the Appellant’s account and, given that the adverse credibility finding was made mainly on the basis of plausibility this potentially corroborative evidence was clearly of prime importance.
9. So far as the second ground is concerned the judge’s conclusion was again made on the basis of plausibility but in any event the remaking of the decision will necessarily involve an assessment of whether the Appellant has maintained or even resumed contact.
10. I therefore find that the judge made material errors of law and set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.
Remaking
11. I am satisfied that none of the judge’s findings can be preserved. Given that the appellant was deprived of a fair hearing before the First-tier Tribunal and applying paragraph 7.2 of the Practice Statements of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal, the appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of material errors on a point of law.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside with no findings preserved.
The remaking of the decision in the appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal at Birmingham, to be remade afresh and heard by any judge other than Judge Swinnerton.

Judge J F W Phillips
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal

12 June 2025