Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-000848
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/02143/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 1 April 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HIRST

Between

ROK
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Dirie, counsel instructed by Wilsons Solicitors LLP
For the Respondent: Ms Gilmore, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 25 March 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellant is granted anonymity. The names of three witnesses are also anonymised in this decision to prevent ‘jigsaw’ identification of the Appellant. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Appellant or any of the witnesses, 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

Summary
1. The Appellant appeals from the decision of the Secretary of State dated 23 April 2024 refusing his protection claim.
2. This appeal came before the Upper Tribunal for rehearing, the First-tier Tribunal’s decision dismissing the appeal having been set aside by the Upper Tribunal on 9 July 2025. For the reasons set out below, I find that the Appellant is at real risk of persecution in Iran on grounds of his Kurdish ethnicity and political opinion. The Appellant’s appeal is allowed on asylum grounds.
Background
3. The Appellant is an Iranian national of Kurdish ethnicity. He arrived in the UK on or around 29 September 2022 (then aged 16) and claimed asylum on 30 September 2022. His asylum claim was refused on 23 April 2024 and his appeal against that decision was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal in a determination promulgated on 21 November 2024.
4. The Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal on 29 April 2025. In a decision dated 9 July 2025 the Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal decision contained a material error of law, set the decision aside and directed that the decision be remade by the Upper Tribunal. The remaking hearing was adjourned several times, due in large part to problems with the Appellant’s previous representatives. It was eventually relisted before me on 25 March 2026.
5. The Appellant attended and gave evidence via a Kurdish Sorani interpreter. Having heard submissions from the parties, I reserved my decision. I am grateful to both representatives for their constructive approach during the hearing and their clear and structured submissions.
Issues in the appeal
6. The Appellant’s Iranian nationality and Kurdish ethnicity are accepted by the Respondent. Ms Gilmore confirmed that the Respondent also accepted that the Appellant had attended political demonstrations outside the Iranian embassy in London on nine dates between 15 March 2023 and 15 February 2026 as set out at paragraph 21 of his witness statement.
7. The parties agreed that the sole issue for the Upper Tribunal at this hearing was risk arising on return from the Appellant’s sur place activity, and that the Tribunal was required to determine:
a. Whether the Appellant’s political activity arose from genuinely held political beliefs, or was opportunistic and an attempt to bolster his asylum claim; and
b. Whether the Appellant would be at risk on return to Iran.
Witness evidence
8. The Appellant adopted his witness statement dated 18 March 2026 and was cross-examined. He acknowledged that most of the demonstrations he had attended had taken place since November 2024 but denied that his attendance was an attempt to obtain a favourable outcome in his appeal. He said that the reason his attendance at demonstrations had increased was because he now knew where to go and because it took time and money to travel from his home to London for the demonstrations. He denied lying about his political motivation. The Appellant said that he found out about the protests via Facebook posts, which would give details of the purpose, time and place of the demonstration. Some demonstrations were in support of Kurdish people who had been hanged by the Iranian authorities, and some were in support of women’s rights; all of the demonstrations were against the Iranian regime.
9. Three witnesses (Mr DY, Ms HY and Ms NI) also attended the hearing in support of the Appellant, but were not called to give oral evidence as Ms Gilmore indicated she did not seek to cross-examine them. I summarise their statements below.
10. Mr DY has been the Appellant’s Personal Advisor as part of his leaving care arrangements since April 2023 and over that time has met with him regularly (initially every 6-8 weeks and now every 12 weeks). In the time that he has known the Appellant, the Appellant has told him about the problems that the Kurds faced in Iran and had attended demonstrations with Kurdish friends. He believed that the Appellant wanted freedom for Kurds and that those beliefs were part of the Appellant’s identity. His view was that the Appellant genuinely believed he could be killed for his political beliefs if returned to Iran.
11. Ms HY first met the Appellant on 10 October 2022 and saw him weekly over a period of 2 years as the service manager at his accommodation placement. Although it had taken the Appellant a long time to open up to staff, he had discussed with her that Kurdish people’s lives were not valuable in Iran and they were discriminated against by the regime; he also discussed the treatment of women in Iran with her. Her view was that the Appellant was passionate about his views and they were genuinely held. The Appellant feared for his safety if returned to Iran, and feared that he could be imprisoned or executed for being involved in demonstrations in the UK.
12. Ms NI has also known the Appellant since 10 October 2022 as a service manager at his accommodation placement and has seen him regularly since then (initially weekly and then once a month from around April 2023). Ms NI said that the Appellant would talk to her about the situation in Iran if there had been something in the news, and would speak about the dangers Kurdish people faced in Iran and his hatred of the Iranian government. Following the US-Israeli air strikes against Iranian targets in summer 2025, the Appellant had told her how scared he was for the Kurds as they were the least protected; she had arranged focused key work sessions to give the Appellant additional support. Ms NI was in no doubt that the Appellant’s fear of return to Iran was genuine.
Submissions
13. Ms Gilmore, having sought to take instructions prior to the hearing, confirmed that the Respondent did not have a position as to the current situation in Iran. She relied on the asylum refusal letter dated 23 April 2024 and the Respondent’s skeleton argument dated 10 November 2025. The Respondent’s position was that the Appellant had previously been found by the First-tier Tribunal to be not credible; that should inform findings about his evidence at today’s hearing. The Appellant’s attendance at demonstrations had suddenly increased following the dismissal of his appeal, and his actions were indicative of an attempt to bolster his asylum claim rather than genuinely held political beliefs. The CPIN evidence did not show that a person who participated in demonstrations but did not have a particular role and was not highlighted in the media was at risk. The Iranian authorities were not able to monitor all returnees; the Appellant would not be at risk. The Appellant’s alternative case (that he would in any event be at risk as a Kurd who had spent time in the UK) could not succeed. The recent news articles supplied by the Appellant should be given little weight as they were not specific to his case and were not contained in a country expert report or published Home Office policy.
14. For the Appellant, Ms Dirie relied on her updated skeleton argument dated 24 March 2026. The Appellant’s primary position was that on the accepted facts the Appellant was at risk on return. He had lived in the UK, claimed asylum and was Kurdish. HB (Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 430 (IAC) (‘HB’) indicated that Kurdish ethnicity was a risk factor and a ‘hair trigger’ approach by the authorities which meant even low level political activity was sufficient to give rise to risk on return. The April 2025 CPIN indicated that the Iranian authorities would intensify monitoring efforts abroad and transnational repression during periods of heightened political tension; that was likely to be the case now given the war. The recent news evidence demonstrated that the US administration had been in active discussions with Iranian opposition groups, including Kurdish groups. The Appellant was Kurdish, had spent some time in the UK and would be returned as a failed asylum seeker during a period of heightened tension as a result of the war; those factors were sufficient to trigger suspicions by the authorities. PS (Christianity – risk) Iran CG [2020] UKUT 46 (IAC) (‘PS’) demonstrated that all returning failed asylum seekers were subject to questioning at the ‘pinch point’ of arrival, including questions about why they claimed asylum. The Appellant’s disclosure of the basis of his claim, his attendance at past demonstrations and his having published anti-regime material on his Facebook account gave rise to a real risk of persecution on return. In any event the Appellant maintained that his political beliefs were genuine, and were supported by three independent witnesses whose evidence had not been challenged by the Respondent.
Discussion and decision
15. To succeed in an appeal on asylum grounds, the Appellant must show that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. The burden of proof is on the Appellant. As the Appellant’s asylum claim was made after 28 June 2022, the provisions of s32 Nationality and Borders Act 2022 apply and I must first determine, on the balance of probabilities, (i) whether, taking his case at its highest, the Appellant has a characteristic which could cause him to fear persecution for a Refugee Convention reason, and (ii) whether he does in fact fear such persecution as a result of that characteristic. If the answer to those questions is yes, then the question is whether there is a real risk or reasonable degree of likelihood that the Appellant will be at risk of harm on return to Iran.
Convention reason
16. It is not in dispute that the Appellant is Kurdish and this is a characteristic (race/ethnicity) that could cause him to fear persecution for a Refugee Convention reason.
17. The Appellant also relies on his pro-Kurdish and anti-regime political opinion. The Respondent disputes that the Appellant in fact holds such opinions, and maintains that the Appellant’s attendance at political demonstrations has been opportunistic and undertaken in order to bolster his claim for asylum.
18. It is not in dispute that the Appellant has attended nine demonstrations since March 2023. Although the majority of those protests have taken place since November 2024 (when the Appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal), I do not accept the Respondent’s submission that the timing of the protests necessarily indicates the Appellant’s attendance was purely opportunistic and undertaken only to bolster his claim following the dismissal of his appeal by the First-tier Tribunal. The Appellant was only 16 and was not literate in any language when he arrived in the UK in September 2022. I accept his evidence that he found out about one of the protests initially through friends and that as his literacy improved he found out about further protests via Facebook. I also accept the Appellant’s evidence that travelling to the demonstrations from his accommodation placement (which is some distance from London) requires both organisation and financial resources which are not always easy to come by. His increased attendance at demonstrations in 2025 and 2026 is, I find, indicative of a growing commitment to pro-Kurdish and anti-regime views which is consistent with the Appellant’s growing maturity, language and literacy skills, and independence during that period as well as an increasingly volatile political situation in Iran.
19. I also accept and give full weight to the unchallenged evidence of the three witnesses who attended in support of the Appellant. All have known the Appellant in professional care and support roles for several years and all gave evidence that he has over the last 3-4 years repeatedly discussed with them the persecution of Kurds in Iran and his opposition to the Iranian regime; all three witnesses were of the view that the Appellant was passionate about his views and that they were genuinely held. I find it is unlikely that the Appellant would have discussed the political situation in Iran, and his support for the Kurds and opposition to the Iranian regime, with individuals who at that stage had no connection to his asylum claim or appeal proceedings if he did not genuinely hold such beliefs.
20. I also take into account the Appellant’s Facebook activity. The Appellant provided a full printout of documents relating to his Facebook account, which ran to 773 pages including metadata and activity logs. The data however only goes back to late August 2025; I am prepared to accept the Appellant’s explanation that his previous account was hacked and could not be accessed, but it means that the activity shown is over a relatively short period and I therefore give the Facebook evidence more limited weight. Over that relatively limited period, however, the Appellant appears to have been consistently active on an almost daily basis in accessing his account and in posting or responding to others’ posts. His profile, cover and other pictures on the account include photographs of him attending demonstrations outside the Iranian embassy, pictures of the former Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei crossed out with a red X, photographs of feet stamping on pictures of the former leader, and photographs and articles condemning the execution of individuals including Kurdish activists in Iran. The activity on the Appellant’s Facebook account, and the frequency and consistency of his activity, is a further factor which I take into account as indicating that the Appellant holds anti-regime political opinions.
21. I find that on the balance of probabilities the Appellant holds political opinions which could cause him to fear persecution. I find that those opinions are genuinely held and do not represent an opportunistic attempt to bolster the Appellant’s case.
22. I further find that on the balance of probabilities the Appellant in fact fears persecution on grounds of his Kurdish ethnicity and political opinion. I accept the Appellant’s written evidence as to his subjective fear, which is supported by the unchallenged evidence of the three witnesses.
Risk on return
23. I approach the issue of risk on return bearing in mind the relevant country guidance in HB (Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 430 (IAC) (‘HB’), BA (Demonstrators in Britain – risk on return) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 36(IAC) (‘BA’), XX (PJAK, sur place activities, Facebook) Iran CG [2022] UKUT 23 (IAC) (‘XX’), and PS (Christianity – risk) Iran CG [2020] UKUT 46 (IAC) (‘PS’), all of which remain relevant and applicable. I have also taken into account the relevant Iran country policy and information notes (‘CPINs’), including in particular the April 2025 CPIN “Social media, surveillance and sur place activities” (updated on 7 January 2026) to which both representatives referred in submissions.
24. The remaking hearing took place in the context of the ongoing US-Israeli war with Iran, which began on 28 February 2026. The Appellant’s consolidated bundle included a country information schedule with links to current advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and links to recent news articles, including articles published by BBC News, Aljazeera, CNN, kurdistan24 and the Associated Press. I have read and considered all of the articles in the schedule. The Respondent did not file any updating evidence addressing the war or its relevance to the appeal.
25. HB makes it clear that Kurds in Iran face discrimination and that individuals of Kurdish ethnicity are regarded by the Iranian authorities with suspicion; Kurdish ethnicity is a significant risk factor which taken with others may create a real risk of persecution. Other factors identified as significant in HB include involvement in Kurdish political groups or activity, including peaceful dissent and low-level activity. HB confirms that the Iranian authorities have a ‘hair trigger’ approach to “those suspected of or perceived to be involved in Kurdish political activities or support for Kurdish rights”: the threshold for suspicion is low and the reaction of the authorities is reasonably likely to be extreme.
26. BA, which despite its age remains applicable country guidance, confirms that the Iranian authorities attempt to identify persons participating in demonstrations outside the London embassy, including by filming those who are present. Expressing dissent is itself sufficient to give an individual a significant political profile in the eyes of the Iranian regime; the nature and level of sur place activity may, together with other factors, increase the likelihood of questioning and ill treatment on return. Returnees are screened on arrival, and activists are likely to be questioned as well as those who have exited illegally.
27. In XX, the Upper Tribunal noted (§85) that the Iranian state targets dissident groups, including those of Kurdish ethnic origin, and (§103) that discovery of material critical of the Iranian regime on Facebook, even if contrived, might make a material difference to the risk faced on return.
28. PS is a case involving religious belief, but is relevant to this case for the guidance it provides about procedures at the ‘pinch point’ of arrival in Iran. PS confirms the older guidance in BA that all returning failed asylum seekers are subjected to questioning on arrival, including about why they claimed asylum.
29. The April 2025 CPIN states (§3.3.1) that:
“3.3.1 A person who is ‘sur place’ openly critical of the Iranian regime online may be subject to treatment on return to Iran, including harassment, arrest, ill treatment, torture and criminal charges, that is sufficiently serious, by its nature or repetition, to amount to persecution.
3.3.2 Whether a person is likely to be at risk on return to Iran will depend on various factors outlined at paragraphs 3.3.7 to 3.3.15, therefore decision makers must undertake a nuanced consideration of those factors for each case. Decision makers must have particular regard to paragraphs 3.3.10 to 3.3.12 and 3.3.15 when considering a case for a person of Kurdish ethnicity.
3.3.3 Decision makers should also take into account that the Iranian authorities are likely to intensify their monitoring efforts abroad during periods of heightened political tension in Iran.”
The passages referred to in paragraph 3.3.2 are references to the country guidance caselaw in XX summarised above.
Application to the Appellant’s case
30. It is likely, applying BA and PS, that the Appellant will be questioned at the ‘pinch point’ of arrival in Iran as a failed asylum seeker and will be asked about the basis of his asylum claim in the UK. The Appellant is accepted to be a Kurd and to have engaged in sur place political activity supportive of pro-Kurdish and anti-regime views. He therefore falls within the guidance in HB and XX in that his political involvement is a risk factor additional to his Kurdish ethnicity; cumulatively those factors are reasonably likely to engage an extreme ‘hair trigger’ response from the Iranian authorities. There is, on the facts of the Appellant’s case and on the evidence contained in the CPINs, a reasonable likelihood that his Kurdish ethnicity, together with disclosure of his involvement in anti-regime activities, both through attendance at demonstrations and through Facebook activity, will result in persecutory ill-treatment on return including arrest, detention, and torture.
31. I have found above that the Appellant’s political beliefs are genuinely held, and (applying HJ (Iran) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 31, [2010] 3 WLR 386) consider that he would only conceal those beliefs on return out of a fear of persecution. However, I emphasise that my conclusion that there is a real risk of persecution on return is independent of whether the Appellant’s political beliefs are genuinely held. The country guidance cases, and HB and BA in particular, emphasise that it is the perception of the Iranian authorities which is key: see also the Upper Tribunal’s reported decision in AB & Ors (internet activity – state of evidence) Iran [2015] UKUT 00257 at §464. If I am wrong about the genuineness of the Appellant’s political beliefs, that does not reduce the likelihood of questioning at the ‘pinch point’ of arrival, nor the suspicion of the Iranian authorities which is likely to arise from the Appellant’s (honest) disclosure of the basis of his asylum claim or the accepted facts of his ethnicity and attendance at anti-regime demonstrations.
32. Nor is my conclusion as to risk on return dependent on the ongoing war between US/Israeli forces and Iran. The news articles relied on by the Appellant are mainly from reputable and balanced international news agencies and I give weight to them in so far as they reflect limited ‘snapshots’ over the last few weeks of a situation which remains highly volatile. In particular, the articles from CNN and the BBC indicate that at least in early March 2026 the CIA and the US administration had been in active discussions with Iranian and Kurdish opposition groups about their provision of military support to US and Israeli forces. The Associated Press article refers to the announcement of an alliance between Kurdish opposition groups in the context of a common interest in ousting the current Iranian regime. The ongoing war is likely to increase the suspicion with which the Iranian regime treats Kurdish returnees and those suspected of anti-regime views, and increases the risk that returnees with such a profile will be subject to persecution on return. However, for the reasons I have set out above the Appellant is reasonably likely to face persecution on grounds of his ethnicity and political opinion regardless of the ongoing war.
33. I therefore allow the Appellant’s appeal.

Notice of Decision

The Appellant’s appeal is allowed on asylum grounds.

L Hirst

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

30 March 2026