Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000756

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/58258/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

1st May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RINTOUL
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DOYLE

Between

SM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr B Shabir, counsel, instructed by McGlashan Mackay, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr A Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at 52 Melville St, Edinburgh, on 16 April 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. We make an anonymity direction because this appeal arises from the appellant’s protection claim.
2. This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge McTaggart, dated 15/12/2024, which dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on all grounds.
Background
3. The Appellant is an Iraqi Kurd who arrived in the UK on 11/11/2021 and claimed international protection on 15/11/2021. The Respondent refused the Appellant’s application on 27/09/2023.
The Judge’s Decision
4. The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. On 15/12/2024 First-tier Tribunal Judge McTaggart (“the Judge”) dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.
5. The Appellant lodged grounds of appeal, and, on 07/02/2025, Tribunal Judge Turner granted permission to appeal. She said
The grounds assert that the Judge erred in reaching a conclusion on the evidence and on the Appellant’s credibility which was not open for the IJ to reach. The IJ based their determination on credibility on one factor, namely a perceived change in the reason given by the Appellant for claiming asylum. This is set out at paragraphs 23 and 24. The IJ make findings on the basis that the Appellant has failed to explain the reason for the perceived change in his account. However, the determination fails to consider the explanation provided by the Appellant in his witness statement and presumably his oral evidence. The IJ also fails to consider the other issues raised by the Appellant which provides context to the Appellant’s account. It is arguable that the IJ fails to give sufficient reasons for rejecting the Appellant’s credibility which is an arguable error of law.
The Hearing
6. For the appellant, Mr Shabir moved the grounds of appeal. He told us that the Judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal because the Judge believed that the appellant’s explanation for leaving Iraq had changed. Mr Shabir said that there had been no change in the appellant’s account and that the Judge had simply misunderstood the appellant’s position.
7. Mr Shabir took us to paragraphs 3 to 7 of the appellant’s witness statement (now found between pages 29 and 31 of the consolidated bundle) and told us that the Judge made a mistake about material facts, which (he said) is an error of law.
8. Mr Shabir explained that the appellant says that he obtained $100,000 worth of construction materials on credit from a businessman (“N”) to be used on a building site controlled by a PUK commander (“MKK”). Mr Shabir told us that there were two PUK fractions, one led by MKK, and the other left by MKK’s cousin, BT. Those two factions were embroiled in a power struggle.
9. Mr Shabir told us that the appellant’s position has always been that because he is associated with MKK he is at risk from the opposing PUK faction, and that he is at risk from N who wants to be paid $100,000. Mr Shabir said that when they appellant used the language of land dispute and family conflict, he was referring to the relationship between MKK and BT (as cousins) and the destruction of MKK’s building site.
10. Mr Shabir referred to [20] to [25] of the decision and said that the Judge’s basis for dismissing the appeal is flawed by misinterpretation of the appellant’s account, which is a material error of law. He asked us to set the Judge’s decision aside.
11. For the respondent, Mr Mullen relied on the respondent’s rule 24 note and said that the decision does not contain an error of law, material or otherwise. He asked us to dismiss the appeal and allow the decision to stand
Analysis
12. In assessing the grounds of appeal, we bear in mind and apply Ullah v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 201 at [26].
13. We also bear in mind what was held in Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464 at [2] and in HA (Iraq) [2022] UKSC 22 at [72], and that the decision must be read sensibly and holistically. Justice requires that the reasons enable it to be apparent to the parties why one has won and the other has lost: English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605, [2002] 1 WLR 2409 at [16]. When reading the decision, we are entitled to assume that the reader is familiar with the issues involved and arguments advanced. Reasons for judgment will always be capable of having been better expressed and an appeal court should not subject a judgment to narrow textual analysis. Nor should it be picked over or construed as though it was a piece of legislation or a contract.
14. We bear in mind that credibility is primarily a matter for the judge.
15. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of his witness statement (dated 2 April 2024) the appellant sets out an account similar to Mr Shabir’s summary. He talks about two separate factions within PUK, the destruction of a building site he was working on, and demands for repayment from N. He identifies the agent of persecution as N. But what he did not do is explain what he had said in his interviews, or how that was to be understood.
16. In his asylum interview the appellant responds to the question “what do you fear in your country?” By saying
A family dispute and also high-ranking political member of the Kurdistan regional government.
17. When the appellant is asked “what happened to make you leave your country?” he answers
There was a dispute between my family and another family. The other family are high-ranking members of the KR G government. My life was threatened and I had no other option than to flee for my safety.
18. Between questions 9 and 11 of the asylum interview, the appellant identifies the PUK authorities and N as agents of persecution. He says
The problem is land dispute.
19. In answer to question 100 of the asylum interview, the appellant says that he does not have any problems with anyone belonging to PUK. He says the agent of persecution is
Just N
20. At [19] and [20] of the decision, the Judge summarises the appellant’s account as plead before him. At [22] the Judge says that, when he looks at each strand of evidence, he can see that the account plead before him in December 2024 was different to the account the appellant gave in his screening interview and in his substantive asylum interview. It is important to note that the Judge’s evaluation was an overall evaluation.
21. The documents placed before us in the consolidated bundle indicate that the Judge’s assessment is correct.
22. At [23] and [24] the Judge justifiably finds that the appellant’s account is weakened by prior inconsistent statements. The Judge correctly finds that the appellant at one point bases his claim on a dispute involving his family, and at another bases his claim on a political dispute. The Judge finds that the appellant says that the agent of persecution is a member of the government, yet in other strands of his evidence the appellant says that the agent of persecution is a builder’s merchant to whom he owes money. He says the builder’s merchant is not a member of the government nor a member of the ruling political party.
23. Having found inconsistency, the Judge concludes (at [25]) that the appellant does not establish the sequence of events that, he says, forced him to leave Iraq.
24. In this appeal we are asked to consider only one strand of the appellant’s evidence and to ignore the inconsistencies the Judge could see in the evidence. The Judge did exactly what he is supposed to do. He made a holistic assessment of every source of evidence.
25. The Judge sets out good reasoning for his findings of fact. The Judge carefully analysed the evidence and then applied the law before reaching a decision well within the range of decisions available to the Judge.
26. A fair reading of the decision demonstrates that the Judge applied the correct test in law. The Judge carried out a holistic assessment of all of the evidence. Neither the grounds nor Mr Shabir’s submissions identify any material unfairness in the procedure adopted nor in the manner in which the evidence was considered. The Judge reached findings of fact open to him on the evidence, and which are properly reasoned and sustainable.
27. The decision does not contain a material error of law. The Judge’s decision stands.
DECISION
28. The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal, dated 15 December 2024, stands.

Signed Paul Doyle Date 28 April 2025
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Doyle