Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000803

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/68119/2023
LP/07410/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 24th of June 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON

Between

QH
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Ahmed instructed by Hanson Law Solicitors.
For the Respondent: Ms Young, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 18 June 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. The Appellant appeals with permission a decision of a judge of the First-tier Tribunal ('the Judge'), promulgated following a hearing at Manchester on 18 December 2024, in which the Judge dismissed his appeal against the refusal of his application for international protection and/or leave to remain in the United Kingdom on any other basis.
2. The core of the Appellant’s claim is that he lived in a village with his mother and sister. He was born in 2000, is of Kurdish ethnicity, and has no political interests. The Appellant claimed he was tending to his orchard when five men arrived and claimed they belong to the KDPI. There were gunshots after which everybody dispersed and the Appellant ran to a nearby village. The Appellant states he contacted his home later and was told the Iranian authorities had been to his house looking for him and had searched his orchard.
3. The Appellant claimed that he spoke to an uncle who immediately concluded he should leave his home country, after which an agent was engaged and he travelled through various countries before arriving in the UK.
4. The Judge records the Secretary of State accepting the Appellant is an Iranian Kurd and that he had taken part in various demonstrations in the UK, but all other aspects remained at large.
5. The Judge records the issues requiring determination at [13] and the findings of fact from [14].
6. The Judge did not find the Appellant credible, [17], finding it unbelievable that five men unknown to the Appellant would enter his orchard for no apparent reason and declare their membership of an organisation. The Judge also finds it incredible that the Iranian authorities were able to have a warrant within such a short period of time or that the Appellant would take the steps of leaving Iran without more enquiries [18].
7. The Judge deals with the Appellant’s sur place activities from [19], accepting the Appellant attended demonstrations at [21] but found that in light of him having no political interest beforehand it was more likely to be as an attempt to bolster his asylum claim, although the Judge properly records that the issue is how he would be perceived by the Iranian authorities.
8. The Judge considers this from [22] leading to it being found that he would not have come to the adverse attention of the authorities as a result of not being an organiser or anybody with the required profile, such as to create a real risk as a result of involvement in demonstrations, and finds that as he claimed to be illiterate much of the material on the Facebook account must have come from other sources.
9. At [29] the Judge finds the Appellant had not demonstrated he was at risk or entitled to remain in the UK and at [30] that he had not been truthful about events in his home country or his claim to have no documents. It was, in any event, found he faced no risk solely as a result of being a person who left illegally and who would be returned using an emergency travel document.
10. The Appellant sought permission to appeal alleging, Ground 1 - the Judge erred in finding at [17] it was found unbelievable five men would enter the orchard and declare their membership of the group in question and to express disbelief that the Iranian authorities could have obtained a warrant so quickly, which it is claimed to be a finding with no evidential basis [18]. Ground 2 - the Judge erred in considering the Appellants sur place activities, submitting the Judge’s finding at [22] contradicted the fact it was known the Iranian authorities engaged in covert monitoring and fails to engage with relevant country guidance cases dealing with this issue. In relation to the findings of the Facebook posts and the Appellant’s claimed lack of literacy, the grounds assert whilst the Appellant acknowledged receiving help from friends he created his own posts having learnt to write during his time in the UK. The grounds assert that this in any event does not avoid risk as merely sharing or liking in a post could give rise to a real risk. This Ground asserts the Judge erred by relying on the Appellant’s lack of prior political activism as the basis for concluding he faces no real risk on return and failed to properly consider the Danian principle. Ground 3 – the Judge erred in making assumptions in relation to how the Iranian authorities behave and applied a higher standard of proof than should have been applied. Ground 4 – the Judge erred in fact at [28] in relation to military service as prosecution can amount to persecution and that any action would result in a breach of the Appellant’s rights under Article 8 ECHR. Ground 5 – the Judge failed to consider relevant country guidance caselaw. Ground 6 – The Judge failed to consider risk factors.
11. For the reasons set out more fully in the grounds seeking permission to appeal.
12. Permission to appeal was granted by another judge the First-tier Tribunal on 17 February 2023.
13. The Secretary of State opposes the appeal in a Rule 24 response dated 3 April 2025.
Discussion and analysis
14. Following a detailed analysis of all the relevant documents Ms Young advised the Tribunal that she accepts the Appellant has established legal error in respect of Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 5 on the basis of the points pleaded, but not in respect of Ground 4 or 6.
15. It was accepted, however, that in light of the grounds on which legal error had been accepted the only realistically available option was for the determination to be set aside and the matter to be considered a fresh by a different judge.
16. I agree. The points specifically made in Grounds 1, 2, 3, and 5 are fatal to the Judge’s decision.
17. In relation to disposal, having considered the joint presidential guidance in relation to remittals and the relevant Upper Tribunal case law, I find that the unfairness that has arisen as a result of the Judge not properly considering the evidence and in not making findings based on that evidence affects the whole of the determination. I accept that in light of the errors there can be no preserved findings. I accept extensive fact-finding will be required in relation to all the relevant issues and on that basis find it is appropriate for the appeal to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal in Manchester to be heard de novo by a different judge.
Notice of Decision
18. The First-tier Tribunal has materially erred in law. The decision is set aside.
19. The appeal shall be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Manchester to be heard de novo by a different judge.

C J Hanson

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

18 June 2025