Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000778

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/62085/2023
LP/10513/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 24 July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FRANTZIS

Between

AT
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETAY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Wood of the Immigration Advice Service.
For the Respondent: Mr A Tan, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 11 July 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
Background
1. In a decision promulgated on 2 May 2025 the Upper Tribunal found an error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which was set aside with no preserved findings.
2. The Appellant is a male citizen of Iraq who claims an entitlement to international protection on the basis of his fear of his religious father who disapproved of his lifestyle, which was said to have tainted the family honour. The Appellant also claims a fear of persecution on account of his political opinion, whether real or imputed, arising from his sur place activities in the United Kingdom, online and at public demonstrations.
3. The Appellant left Iraq using his own passport on 14 September 2021 flying from Baghdad to Lebanon. On 18 September 2021 he flew to Belarus and then travelled to Poland and into Germany where he was encountered and fingerprinted, did not claim asylum, but travelled onto France.
4. On 10 October 2021 the Appellant entered the United Kingdom by small boat and on 11 October 2021 claimed asylum. On 9 November 2023 the Secretary of State refused his protection application. It is the Appellant’s appeal against that decision which we are considering.
5. Both members of the Panel have contributed substantively to this Decision.
Issues
6. The Schedule of Issues upon which the Upper Tribunal is required to make findings is as follows:

i. Is the Appellant of adverse interest to his father, a member of the Kurdish Islamic Movement (“IMK”)?
ii. If so, would there be a sufficiency of protection available to the Appellant on return and/or would there be a safe place of internal relocation, that would not be unduly harsh?
iii. Would the Appellant be at risk on return on account of his sur place political activity in the United Kingdom?
iv. Would there be a risk of a breach of Article 3 ECHR due to a lack of Iraqi identification documentation?

7. Before the First-tier Tribunal the Appellant claimed that he voted for the Goran party in Iraq but in his more recent witness statement dated 30 June 2025 the Appellant claimed the Goran party are together with the PUK and KDP so he is no longer supporting them. The Appellant claims he does not like the PUK and KDP because they do not give people rights, are just gangsters, kill journalists, and have been living off the people for the last 27 years just filling their pockets.
8. Mr Wood confirmed that the Appellant does not pursue a discrete argument in relation to his ‘Westernisation’, rather this is framed within what Mr Wood described as the ‘honour matter’ between the Appellant and his father.
9. The Appellant claims while living in Iraq that he was afraid to attend political demonstrations due to the risk of being detained, mistreated, and sent to prison for expressing a personal opinion, but that in the United Kingdom he has attended meetings for the Dakok Support Centre as he is free and can attend and participate without fear.
10. The Appellant claims that if he replicated his political activity in Iraq he fears he will be arrested, detained, mistreated, and sent to prison, because the authorities in the IKR stop people criticising them.
11. The Appellant claims he is not in contact with his family in Iraq because they have disowned him and will not help him, and that his father will harm him because he does not agree with the way that he lives his life.
12. The Secretary of State rejected the Appellant’s claim on the basis he was said to have provided inconsistent evidence without reasonable explanation with some elements of his account being found to be implausible and inconsistent with external information. The documentation provided was given very little weight when considered in the round. The Respondent does not accept that the Appellant holds genuine political beliefs as claimed. The Respondent’s position is that the Appellant does not hold a well-fear of persecution.
13. The Respondent also claims that the Appellant’s credibility is damaged pursuant to section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004 on the basis he failed to claim asylum in safe European countries he travelled through on his way to United Kingdom by reference to Poland, Germany and France.
14. In relation to documentation the Appellant claimed his passport was taken in Germany leading the Respondent to state he could apply to the German authorities to have it returned to him or, in the alternative, apply for a Laissez Passer at the Iraqi Embassy in London with a copy of the passport that was submitted to the Secretary of State, or attend for interview which will enable him to fly directly to the IKR where he will be permitted entry.
15. The Appellant has consistently maintained that he has been issued with an INID. The Respondent claims that the Appellant gave alternative accounts for the whereabouts of his INID and has failed to demonstrate he or his family do not already hold it or have access to his original CNID/INID or in any event that they will be unable to assist him in obtaining replacement identification documents through the local Civil Status Affairs Office.
16. The Respondent rejected the Appellant’s claim on human rights grounds.
Discussion and Analysis
17. We had the benefit of considering Mr Wood’s skeleton argument of 2 July 2025 in addition to the Appellant’s oral evidence and the submissions made by the advocates. We mean no disrespect to either Party by not setting out their submissions in full, we confirm we have considered each point made.
18. For the reasons that we set out in detail below, having considered all of the evidence before us in the round, we are left with the clear impression that the Appellant’s evidence is unreliable and that he is not a witness of truth in any regard as to the factual premise of his claim.
19. One source of evidence the Appellant sought to rely upon in support of his sur place activities and genuine political opinion was his Facebook account/entries. The Upper Tribunal in XX (PJAK, sur place activities, Facebook) (CG) [2022] UKUT 00023 provided guidance in relation to social media, including Facebook, recording that is it easy for an apparent printout or electronic excerpt of an internet page to be manipulated by changing the page source data and that where a decision-maker did not have access to an actual account, purported printouts from such an account may have very limited evidential value.
20. The Appellant provided copies of printouts from his Facebook account but insufficient evidence of the nature of that referred to in XX to enable us to find that anything other than limited weight could be given to this evidence when considered in the round with the other material, to which we refer below. The download data, provided by the Appellant himself, does not appear to us to be complete.
21. It is clear that the printouts themselves are also not complete. For example, Mr Tan referred the Appellant to inconsistencies in relation to the dates of political events in the United Kingdom, which the Appellant claimed he had attended, when he was not even in the United Kingdom at that time. Sections of those documents written in Kurdish are clearly incomplete as after some of the scripts the words “See more …” appears.
22. Also of concern in terms of the evidence provided is that although within the same printout is a section written in the English language, which has been provided by the Appellant as a translation in English of what is written in his Kurdish, there is no certification from an approved translator confirming that what is written is an accurate translation. The Tribunals have given clear guidance on what is required in relation to translations to ensure best evidence can be received.
23. The English version of the text in question appeared as follows:
DAKOK
Today on 04/4/2019 in Manchester I participated in the demonstration organized by Dakok. As an activist, I participated ln this protest against the Kurdistan regional government, the Iraqi government and for the support of the teachers.
Today on 24/1/2024 in Manchester I participated in the demonstration organized by DAKOK. I participated as an activist in this protest against the Kurdistan Regional Government and the Iraqi.
24. The simple point made by Mr Tan, as confirmed by the chronology set out above, is that in 2019 the Appellant was not even in the United Kingdom, casting serious doubt upon the credibility of the Appellant’s claim, the question of whom such a statement actually refers to and the reliability of the Facebook evidence before us.
25. The Appellant was given an opportunity to answer these points in relation to which he claimed that the translation had been provided by “Google translate” but that is not an approved source of translation in terms of accuracy or reliability for evidential purposes.
26. If the Appellant is claiming the Google translations are accurate the software must have translated something in the text in question that related to 2019 in the English language. The explanation by the Appellant that it should have been 2024 rather than 2019 does not adequately explain why a different figure was given in the evidence.
27. A further difficulty for the Appellant in relation to this matter is that the point referred to above by Mr Tan [24], which is to be found at page 200 of 963 of the Composite Bundle, is repeated at page 491 of 963 where the Appellant relies on a further page from his Facebook account showing him with a group of individuals, described as activists and members of Dakok organisation, participating in a demonstration against the attacks of the Turkish state. There only appears to have been one date in the version translated and the text in the Appellant’s own language does not appear in this post. The date provided for that demonstration is also in 2019. Again, the post is incomplete.
28. The Appellant was also asked why, if he is claiming to have attended such on behalf of the Dakok organisation, there was no evidence from them supporting his claimed activity. The Appellant’s response, that it was because he was not yet a member, is not a satisfactory explanation in our view.
29. The Appellant’s evidence is that he has been involved with Dakok for over a year. When asked why this organisation was not mentioned at the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal in October 2024, the Appellant’s reply (that he was not asked about it) was not satisfactory. We find little weight can be attached to that response in circumstances where the Appellant was legally represented and would have been aware of the need to outline all matters that he claimed gave rise to a real risk on return.
30. The evidence before us does not, even to the lower standard, support a finding that the Appellant holds genuine political beliefs, much less that he is a political activist as described by Mr Wood, such as would bring him into conflict with the State or any other actor.
31. The Appellant claims he faces a real risk on return of serious harm from his father who is described as having strong Islamic views. We accept there are parties in the IKR such as the Kurdistan Islamic Union (KIU) which together with the IMK entered the fifth term of the Iraqi parliament as part of the Towards Reform Coalition with a total of five seats, although on 1 March 2023 all members of the coalition resigned. The KIU decided not to replace their MPs but the IMK did, with two MPs being sworn in on 15 March 2023. We acknowledge and take account of the evidence Mr Wood took us to as to the relationship between the PUK, KDP and the IMK.
32. The Appellant claims that his father had influence as a result of his involvement with the IMK but it is not made out that he is senior party official, MP, or anybody who held a position of responsibility or organisation within this group, if this aspect of the Appellant’s claim is true. Indeed, when questioned about this at substantive interview [36], the Appellant stated that his father did not have a position in the Party of any specific role. This does not establish he had any credible profile or influence of the type the Appellant claims.
33. Similarly, although the Appellant claimed that he would face a real risk throughout all of Iraq as a result of his father’s Party connections, that was not made out on the evidence. More than an article speaking to unity between political parties would be required to demonstrate the Appellant’s case in this regard, even to the lower standard of proof.
34. We also find that, a number of issues having been raised by the Respondent as regards the Appellant’s claimed fear of his father, the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to show those concerns are without foundation. We deal with examples below.
35. Within the Appellant’s bundle is a reference to a YouTube video which the Appellant claimed shows people attending New Year celebrations in Erbil. We find that could not be relied upon as anything more than a screenshot of what was purportedly shown, as Mr Wood accepted.
36. Mr Tan in cross examination explored with the Appellant his claim that his father was so domineering and threatening that the Appellant’s fear of him was well-founded. The first line of questioning related to the Appellant’s claim that his father took him out of mainstream education and insisted he attended Islamic school. If the Appellant’s father was as frightening and controlling as the Appellant asserts one would have expected that the Appellant would have honoured his wishes or been fearful of the consequences of not doing so. The Appellant’s position is, however, that he refused his father’s wishes as he wanted to study with no evidence of a violent reaction, which is contrary to the core of the Appellant’s assertions in relation to his father. When the Appellant was asked if he knew why his father did not force him to go to Islamic school when he refused, no satisfactory explanation was provided. The Appellant’s claim was that he was not allowed to study anymore and was told he would have to go to work, but we find that does not accord with the Appellant’s claims in relation to his father’s severe violence if he did not comply with his wishes.
37. The Appellant claimed that the final matter which led to him having to leave Iraq was his drinking and coming home drunk and his father’s severe adverse reaction to that. The Appellant was asked whether he was claiming that whilst he was living with his family he would go out, drink, and come home drunk to which he replied “yes”. Mr Tan asked him if he was claiming he had been beaten by his father before for doing so, why he would risk doing that again, to which the Appellant claimed he just like drinking, that he could not stop it and he liked it. Mr Tan than asked the Appellant how he managed to hide coming home drunk to the family home over a period of 4 to 5 years in reply to which the Appellant claimed he was not going back in a drunken state as he was going back late, he was aware, and that things could remain a secret for many years in a family.
38. A contradiction in the Appellant’s evidence was put to him by Mr Tan in that he was now saying that he would not go back in a drunken state whereas in his asylum interview he said he did go home drunk, that being a reference to question 35 of his substantive interview.
39. We find that in his asylum interview the Appellant clearly claimed that he returned home drunk. The Appellant’s claim that there was no contradiction and that he had not said things in his oral evidence that he had not claimed previously or vice versa is without merit as the Appellant’s evidence clearly did not accord with the evidence given in the asylum interview.
40. A further concern arose when the Appellant was asked how he travelled between Erbil and Sulamaniyah, which he claimed was by car. He was also asked how he travelled from Sulamaniyah to Baghdad which he claimed was, again, by car. When the Appellant was asked whether he passed through any checkpoints he claimed that he ‘did not go that way’. Mr Tan sought clarification as to what the Appellant was saying in response to which the Appellant then claimed that when he entered Baghdad he went through a checkpoint but they did not investigate him and only looked at his ID card, which we find is contrary to country evidence regarding checkpoints within Iraqi including those between the IKR and government-controlled areas of Iraq (see paragraph 15 of Mr Wood’s skeleton argument) .
41. The Appellant was also asked about his passport which he claimed a friend of his maternal uncle obtained for him whilst he was in Baghdad. The Appellant confirmed it had been obtained so he could leave Iraq which he did on 14 September 2021.
42. The Appellant’s factual account is undermined by the fact pointed out by Mr Tan that if the Appellant was claiming the passport was obtained when he was in Baghdad through the friend of maternal uncle to help him escape Iraq, the passport could not in fact have been issued in September 2020 when the matters the Appellant was complaining about occurred in 2021.
43. The Appellant’s attempts to provide an explanation lacked credibility and failed to engage with the simple point regarding the chronology and how nothing of what he was claiming fitted in with the reality of the date attached to the passport. For example, he claimed that the passport was previously with his maternal uncle and that it was brought to him from the maternal uncle’s house, but when it was pointed out to him that he had claimed he had stayed at his maternal uncle’s house after he left his family home, which he confirmed to be the case, and asked why the passport was not given to him then, the Appellant provided no satisfactory explanation at all.
44. For the reasons that we set out above, we find the Appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proof upon him to the lower standard to show that the facts of his claim to face a real risk in Iraq on account of his father’s reaction to his activities, or at all, is a truthful one.
45. For the avoidance of doubt, we have considered and taken account of Mr Wood’s submissions in respect of the Respondent’s own guidance when assessing credibility, however, the issues that we have identified above are so fundamental that they cannot be explained by reference to any claimed past ill-treatment or present vulnerability.
46. Furthermore, whilst not determinative, we note that the Appellant has failed to adequately explain why he did not claim protection in the countries that he passed through prior to entering the United Kingdom.
47. We find, having considered all matters before us in the round, that the Appellant is not entitled to international protection.
48. We find the Appellant can be re-documented as on his own case he has been issued with an INID. It was not disputed that the country material shows a replacement INID card can be obtained from within the United Kingdom (see CPIN: Internal relocation, civil documentation and return, Iraq, October 2023 Executive Summary: “Family members or friends remaining in Iraq may be able to apply for a replacement INID on behalf of someone in the UK, providing the person has had their biometrics taken in Iraq and has previously been issued with an INID”). The Appellant has not provided credible evidence that his personal circumstances will prevent this occurring.
49. The Appellant has failed to establish that he has no contact with any family member in Iraq or that they will be unable to assist as required in relation to re-documentation or reintegration on return.
50. It is not made out the Appellant is unable to secure a laizzer passer which he can used to fly directly to either Erbil or Sulamaniyah.
51. In relation to his sur plus activities, the Appellant did not undertake any political activity in Iraq and thus had no political profile upon leaving the country through Baghdad airport. Although the authorities in the Kurdish region have clamped down, on journalists in particular, the country evidence does not show that all who undertake demonstrations against the political parties there face a real risk. The country material shows the reality is that as the numbers attending demonstrations are so great the authorities would not be able to take action against all but rather choose to target those they deem to be a threat to the stability of the ruling parties. There is nothing in the evidence to show the Appellant has such a profile, or would have the same imputed to him. He is not, as Mr Wood invited us to accept, an activist. The Appellant has failed to show a genuine political opinion. He has not established that he would attend any demonstrations or protests on return to the IKR. Whilst Mr Wood submitted that monitoring of those attending demonstrations in the United Kingdom would be ‘common sense’, we were taken to no sufficient background information in support of the ability or intention of the authorities in the IKR to monitor and identify all those attending demonstrations from social media, regardless of their profile nature of their participation. In the Appellant’s case, we find this is purely attendance at best but no more. We remind ourselves of the background information provided by the Appellant at 538 of the Consolidated Bundle which is in the following terms: “Iraqi government departments generally lack modern electronic devices and applications and tend to use rudimentary methods of electronic communication, making it unlikely that they have the technical means to surveil private user activity.”
52. The Appellant has not established insurmountable obstacles to reintegration into Iraq as his claim that the same exist is linked to the core elements of his asylum claim, which he has not proven to the requisite standard of proof.
Notice of Decision
53. The appeal is dismissed on all grounds.

C J Hanson

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

18 July 2025