Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000797

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/53472/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

17th November 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MANDALIA

Between

MS
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation
For the Appellant: Mr S Martin, Jain Neil & Ruddy Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr A Mullen Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Edinburgh Tribunal Hearing Centre on 14 August 2025
Decision and Reasons
Anonymity
1. This appeal concerns a claim for international protection. 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.
Introduction
2. The appellant is a national of Iraq. His appeal against the respondent’s decision of 26 January 2024 to refuse his claim for international protection was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) Judge Kempton (“the judge”) for reasons set out in a decision dated 17 December 2024 (“the decision”).
3. The appellant claims the decision of the judge is vitiated by errors of law that centre upon the judge’s analysis of the credibility of the appellant and his account of events in Iraq. In summary, the grounds of appeal claim the judge; (i) refers to inconsistencies in the appellant’s account when in fact there as no inconsistencies; (ii) failed to give adequate reasons for the conclusion that aspects of the appellant’s evidence are inconsistent; (iii) failed to have regard to background material supporting the appellant’s account. The appellant advances a number of other grounds, but Mr Scott confirmed at the outset of his submissions before me that the other claimed errors regarding sufficiency of protection, the appellant’s relationship with his family and the risk on return as an ‘undocumented’ Iraqi national are only relevant in the event that the judge erred in her analysis of the core of the appellant’s account and the adequacy of reasons given for the adverse credibility findings made.
4. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell on 1 April 2025. He said:
“I confess, with respect to the judge, that I have not found her decision altogether easy to understand. The findings are to be found from [41] onwards. The judge evidently found that the appellant's account was untrue, although there are various observations about internal relocation amongst the parts of the decision which concern the truthfulness of the account. The arguments in the grounds largely concern the judge's assessment that the appellant had not given a truthful account and those arguments are deserving of further scrutiny. It is arguable, in particular, that the judge erred in concluding that the appellant's account was inconsistent in a number of important respects.”
The Hearing of the Appeal Before Me
5. Mr Martin adopted the appellant’s grounds of appeal and submits that the main thrust is the lack of adequate reasons for the findings and conclusions reached by the judge. He submits that paragraphs [48], [49] and [65] of the decision concern the appellant’s claim regarding his relationship with a woman who I refer to as [S]. At paragraph [49], the judge rejected the appellant’s claim that he had known [S] most of his life and yet did not know she was married and had a child. Mr Martin submits the judge has taken the appellant’s evidence out of context. The judge had recorded, at [48], that the appellant had done some ‘painting’ at [S]’s house. She started to send him text messages and photos of her legs and breasts, but at that point he did not know who they were from, other than it was a woman. The judge recorded the evidence that it was not until they met in person on 15 August 2020 that the appellant found out the woman was older than him and had a child. The appellant’s evidence was not therefore that he did not know the woman that he had known most of his life, and in whose house he had been working as a decorator, was married and had a child. He received the text messages and he did not know who was propositioning him. Mr Martin submits the messages received were anonymous and did not show the sender. There was no inconsistency in the account.
6. Mr Martin submits that at paragraphs [51] to [54] the judge refers to the appellant’s account that he went with his cousin to his parent’s house and on their way they were ambushed and attacked by {S]’s brother and cousin. Mr Martin submits the appellant was describing two attacks. He was first attacked by [S]’s brother and cousin on his way home to his parents’ house. Second, he was attacked by his father when he returned home. The judge, Mr Martins submits, either misunderstood the evidence or he fails to give adequate reasons for his decision that there was in an inconsistency in the appellant’s account.
7. Finally, Mr Martins submits that at paragraphs [63], [64] and [66] of his decision, the judge refers to [S] having been able to flee Iraq with her child. The judge expresses surprise that she was able to leave Iraq when a woman’s honour is one of the most important cultural aspects in the IKR.
8. In reply, Mr Mullen submits acknowledges that the judge’s reasoning is difficult to follow. He submits however that the findings made were open to the judge. He submits there remain questions about the absence of family members from the home of [S] and he submits there would have been evidence of the child’s presence in her house. There were a number of discrepancies in the appellant’s account of events following the family becoming aware of the appellant’s relationship with [S] and there was no indication that the family of [S] were able to prevent her departure from Iraq. Mr Mullen submits that although the reasoning is difficult to follow, the overall findings made were open to the judge.
Decision
9. In cases (such as the present) where the credibility of the appellant is in issues a judge adopts a variety of different evaluative techniques to assess the evidence. The judge will for instance consider: (i) the consistency (or otherwise) of accounts given to investigators at different points in time; (ii) the consistency (or otherwise) of an appellant's narrative case for asylum with his actual conduct at earlier stages and periods in time; (iii) whether, on facts found or agreed or which are incontrovertible, the appellant is a person who can be categorised as at risk if returned, and, if so, as to the nature and extent of that risk (taking account of applicable Country Guidance); (iv) the adequacy (or by contrast paucity) of evidence on relevant issues that, logically, the appellant should be able to adduce in order to support his or her case; and (v), the overall plausibility of an appellant's account.
10. The judge summarised the core of the appellant’s claim at paragraphs [14] and [15] of the decision:
“14. The appellant’s position is that he fears persecution on account of his particular social group as a male who has had a secret relationship with a married woman in Iraq.
15. He fears the family of the woman and in particular fears being at risk of an honour killing.”
11. Like Judge Blundell who considered the application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, I have not found the decision of the FtT judge altogether easy to understand. The judge’s analysis of the evidence, her findings as to the credibility of the appellant and her conclusions are set out at paragraphs [26] to [70] of the decision. Here, the focus of the criticisms made by Mr Martin concerns the judge’s evaluation of the evidence and the adequacy of reasons. Plainly, if a judge makes material errors in the evaluation of evidence, for instance, because the judge considers there to be inconsistencies in an individuals account given to investigators at different points in time, an appellate court will interfere. I acknowledge that one should not comb through a decision to find errors of law and that the writing of a decision is not a counsel of perfection. The reasons set out must however set out the building blocks for the conclusions reached, so that a party is able to understand why they have won or lost the appeal.
12. Before I turn to the criticisms made by Mr Martin, the judge expressed her overall conclusions regarding the appellants account of events in Iraq and the documents that will be available to him on return at paragraphs [65] to [67] of the decision:
“65. In all the circumstances, I do not accept that the appellant has given a true account of what has occurred to him in Iraq. I do not accept that he would have entered into an illicit relationship with a married woman. His account is inconsistent, saying he did not know she was married or had a child and yet he had been at the house painting and knew her most of his life as a neighbour. I consider his account of this relationship to be false and to be an attempt simply to manufacture an asylum claim.
66. I accept that blood feuds do occur in Iraq. However, in this case, I do not accept that there has been any issue which would give rise to a potential blood feud. The woman would have been killed and not have been able to escape if there had been any such issue.
67. In addition, the appellant can be returned to Iraq. He has not given a true account of the documents he had there. I do not accept that he only used his birth certificate to move about and never had a CSID card. It is far more likely that he has been told to say he has no documents when he makes his claim. In any event, he is clearly in regular touch with his younger brother and maternal cousin, if not other family members, and he can ask them to send his documentation to him to enable him to be redocumented. I do not accept that there are no documents to send. If his family have indeed moved elsewhere, they would have had to take their documents in order to register in another area.”
13. In order to consider those key conclusions that concern the core of the appellant’s account of events and lie at the heart of the consideration as to risk upon return, it is necessary to consider in a little more detail the evidence referred to by the judge concerning the material events to identify whether there are in inconsistencies in the appellant’s account, as set out by the judge. It is clear that a key consideration for the judge in her analysis of the appellant’s account was what the judge described as an inconsistency in the appellant’s account in his claim that he did not know [S] was married or had a child and yet he had been at her house painting, and knew her most of his life as a neighbour. The judge found the appellant’s account of this relationship to be false and an attempt simply to manufacture an asylum claim. That was a key consideration for the judge since the judge accepted, at [66], that blood feuds do occur in Iraq. However, the judge did not accept that there had been any issue which would give rise to a potential blood feud.
14. At paragraph [48] of her decision, the judge referred to the answers given by the appellant when he was interviewed on 25 October 2024. When asked why he claiming asylum in the UK, the appellant answered (Q.41), “I had a relationship with a married lady, we had a sexual relationship. People found out and I was threatened to be killed”. The appellant claim in that interview that about 12 days before the relationship stated the lady had “started sending him messages”. He claimed (Q.43) that he first met the lady “in her house late in the evening. It was late evening nighttime”. The appellant provided the name of the lady and the following exchange is recorded:
“Q.45 When did you actually first meet as in introduced to each other ?
A We used to see each other because we were neighbour, I know her from early in my life.
…
Q.50 So why did [S] contact you 12 days before you met at her house ?
A. I work in there (sic) house I finished the painting or finish the job then around 10 12 days later she sent me text message
Q.51 What was she asking in the text messages ?
A. Initially greetings like hello, the next message she said she had some questions. Then in a message she asked me if I have a lover a girlfriend or something, and do I want to get married and I responded saying I dont know you why are you asking these questions. I respond I am not ready I dont know you so I cannot answer your questions. I ask her to ok let me know who she was and she was not happy. Then we did not speak anymore and disconnected. After a couple of days she sent another text message and asked the same questions. I said ok who are you, I did not know if it was a man or woman, I said I cannot answer without knowing your identity. Again she asked and she wasn't happy to disclose her details and I was not sure if it was male or female, on the 6 and 7 nights she asked the same questions. I said I am blocking you if you do not tell me who you are. Initially she declined to give her details, she eventually said I am female but would not share her photo, I was assured she was a female finally. She said I will open the camera and show you a part of my body to show I am female. I was happy to be assured, she showed me she was honest and she was as she claimed being female. She showed me her legs which were shaved and wore a red dress. Then I asked her to show me here (sic) breasts and make me sure you are a female. She showed me that area but not her face. Initially I was not sure if it was a male or female, so I did not respond in a good way, then I saw her body and was sure it was female so I was happy to continue messaging her.
Q. 52 So you were satisfied she was a female, is this when you agreed to meet up?
A no not yet, we just chat.
Q.53 How long did you exchange these messages?
A For 10 12 days since our chatting started, we just chat until the night we met. I found out she was female, married and have children, the lady was older than me. The lady was older than me, the lady had a child but I did not know that until the relationship started on the 15 August 2020, the evening late at night when they met. We had not seen each other during the time we were texting chatting.
Q.54 So how did you come to meet on 15 August?
A Initially the lady asked me ok we keep confidentiality until I tell you secret I keep with you
Q.55 Who did you meet for the first time on 15 August?
A no, 15 august the lady made a call and talked initially and said you have to accept my call everything should be secret and safe. I am {S] I had to hide my identity at first.
Q.56 Can you tell me when you met for the first time?
A We had been connected for longer than three weeks 15 august to 10 September 2020. 10 September 2020 was the first time we met when I went to her house and the first time we had sex
…”
15. I accept, as Mr Martin submits, the judge has misunderstood the appellant’s evidence or has taken it out of context. It is clear what when the account given by the appellant in interview is properly considered, the appellant’s account was that he had received text messages from an individual and that initially he did not know who had been sending those messages (Q.51). The messages continued and the appellant’s account is that he was sent photos of the individual’ legs and breasts, but at that point he did not know who they were from, other than it was a woman. It was not until later, until the night they met, that the appellant found out she was female, older than him, married and had children.
16. I have some sympathy with the submissions made by Mr Mullen regarding the appellant’s claim. They however are not the reasons given by the judge for rejecting the core of the appellant’s account. There may well be other areas of concern that the judge had regarding the evidence concerning the core of the appellant’s account regarding the relationship. For example, it remains unclear why the appellant would have wanted to attend the house of a neighbour, for whom he had carried out some work only a few days earlier. He is likely to have known that he was meeting a woman who had sent him pictures of her legs and breasts and that woman was someone he had known for some time, to be married with children. However the judge does not carry out any proper evaluation of the evidence and she does not give adequate reasons for her finding. Such reasons that are given are premised upon an inaccurate understanding of the appellant’s claim or difficult to reconcile with the evidence. The evidence of the appellant may have been considered to be incredible or contrary to common sense so that it is not plausible, but it is difficult to discern that the account given by the appellant was inconsistent.
17. It follows in my judgment that there is a material error of law in the decision of the FtT regarding matters that lie at the heart of the appeal such that the decision must be set aside. The other findings made by the judge flow from her consideration of the appellant’s relationship with [S] that lies at the heart of his claim. The building blocks for the decision are undermined. The erroneous consideration of the core of the claim impacts upon the consideration of the claim as a whole and I do not therefore need to address the other grounds of appeal relied upon.
18. As to disposal, I am conscious of the Court of Appeal’s decision in AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1512, Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC) and §7.2 of the Senior President’s Practice Statements. Sub-paragraph (a) deals with where the effect of the error has been to deprive a party before the Tribunal of a fair hearing or other opportunity for that party's case to be put to and considered by the FtT, whereas sub-paragraph (b) directs me to consider whether I am satisfied that the nature or extent of any judicial fact finding which is necessary in order for the decision in the appeal to be re-made is such that, having regard to the overriding objective in rule 2, it is appropriate to remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal.
16. Having regard to the nature of the error of law I am satisfied as both parties urge that the appropriate course, in fairness to the appellant, is for the appeal to be remitted for rehearing before the FtT.
Notice of Decision
19. The decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Kempton dated 17 December 2024 is set aside.
20. The appeal is remitted to the FtT for hearing afresh with no findings preserved
21. The parties will be notified of a hearing date by the FtT in due course.

V. Mandalia
Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 November 2025