Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-000779
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/55024/2024
LP/09164/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

27th October 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JARVIS

Between

BA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M. Nadeem, legal representative for Allison Wells Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr D. Simpson, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 14 October 2026

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. This Order is made pursuant to the international protection issues in the appeal.

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. The Appellant has appealed the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Row (and hereafter “the Judge”), decided on 1 December 2024; permission was granted by the Upper Tribunal on 14 December 2025.
Relevant background
2. In short, the Appellant claims to have become involved in a blood feud in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
3. The Judge heard the substantive statutory appeal on 27 November 2024. In the decision the Judge noted that the Respondent did not accept the truthfulness of the Appellant’s core claim (§16) but accepted that the Appellant would be at risk on return to Iraq if his core underlying account was in fact credible (§17).
4. At §18 the Judge noted that credibility issues were raised in the refusal and by the Presenting Officer during the hearing.
5. From §24 the Judge identified a number of adverse credibility points which damaged the core of the Appellant’s credibility such as to render him an untruthful witness. The Judge went on to dismiss the Appellant’s international protection and human rights appeal.
The error of law hearing
6. At the error of law hearing Mr Nadeem relied upon the grounds as they had been settled by the Appellant’s previous representatives. Mr Simpson argued that, viewed in the round, the Judge had given adequate reasons for concluding that the Appellant had not told the truth.
7. Both representatives agreed that if the Judge had materially erred in their conclusions the matter should be remitted for a full substantive rehearing at the First-tier Tribunal.
Findings and reasons
8. In my view the Appellant has established that the Judge had failed to give adequate reasons.
9. In South Bucks District Council v Porter (2) [2004] UKHL 33, Lord Brown said at §26:
"The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the "principal important controversial issues", disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration."
10. At §§25 to 28 of this judgment, the Judge noted that the Appellant had given three different dates for the alleged shooting in Iraq between his screening interview, witness statement (of 27 April 2023) and his asylum interview, dated 8 January 2024.
11. The Judge observed that it was concerning that the Appellant had given three dates bearing in mind the importance of the event and the consequences that it had upon the Appellant’s life (see §26). The Judge also noted that the Appellant arrived in the United Kingdom about two weeks after the incident and therefore could be expected to recall the date and be consistent about it (§27).
12. At §28 the Judge concluded (on this particular point) that “[o]ne explanation is that he was not telling the truth. By the time he came to write his statement and attend the asylum interview he had forgotten what he had said on previous occasions because it was untrue.”
13. The difficulty with this finding is that whilst the Judge made reference to, and considered the content of, the witness statement of 27 April 2023 the Judge did not obviously show in this part of the judgment any consideration of the Appellant’s evidence at paragraph 14 of his 17 July 2024 witness statement.
14. In that paragraph the Appellant explained that it was on 18 August 2022 that his nephew borrowed the car and that his house was raided on 19 August 2022. The Appellant added that the reference to 17 August 2022 in his previous witness statement was inaccurate.
15. Effectively then the Appellant was seeking to explain that the incident occurred over two dates (18 August and 19 August 2022) and that the reference to 17 August 2022 was a mistake.
16. In my judgment this explanation was sufficiently detailed to require the Judge to engage with it as part of their reasoning and explain why the explanation had been rejected.
17. The Judge’s failure to engage with the Appellant’s explanation is therefore an error in law. It is material because the Judge identified it as being a key part of their conclusion that the Appellant was not telling the truth about his core claim.
18. In light of the materiality of this error there is no need to go on to consider the other arguments advanced by the Appellant.

Notice of Decision
19. I therefore conclude that the decision of the Judge should be set aside in its entirety.
20. The remaking of the substantive hearing should take place in the First-tier Tribunal; not before First-tier Tribunal Judge Row.

I Jarvis

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal Jarvis
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

23 October 2026