Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000871

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/68458/2023
LP/09853/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 22 October 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COLE

Between

DA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr R Selway, Counsel instructed by Primus Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms C Newton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 6 October 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 is a citizen of Iran. He arrived in the UK on 6 May 2020 and claimed asylum. His protection claim was refused, and he appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. His appeal was dismissed in a decision promulgated on 11 December 2024.
2. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal was set aside by Upper Tribunal Judge Hanson in a decision dated 18 June 2025. Thus, the appellant’s protection appeal came before us for re-making.
The Hearing
3. Ms Newton and Mr Selway confirmed their agreement that the following findings had been preserved:
i. The appellant is an Iranian Kurd.
ii. The appellant worked as Kolbar in Iran.
iii. The appellant had very limited involvement with the KDPI.
iv. The appellant, whilst working as a kolbar, had been intercepted and identified by the Iranian authorities.
v. After the appellant came to the attention of the Iranian authorities, the appellant’s father was detained and abused for a few days.
vi. The appellant left Iran illegally.
vii. The appellant has undertaken low level political activities in the UK.
4. Ms Newton confirmed that, applying the preserved findings to the guidance contained in HB (Kurds) Iran (illegal exit: failed asylum seeker) CG [2018] UKUT 430 (IAC), the appellant’s appeal fell to be allowed on protection grounds. She further acknowledged that the additional information provided by the appellant for this hearing only made his claim stronger.
5. After hearing the submissions, we allowed the appeal with written reasons to follow.
Discussion and Analysis
6. Having considered carefully all the evidence in the case, we find that the appellant would be at real risk of persecution on removal to Iran due to his Kurdish ethnicity and his political opinion. We concur with Ms Newton on behalf of the Respondent that this appeal should be allowed.
7. HB (Kurds) confirmed that, on return to Iran, Kurdish ethnicity is a risk factor which, when combined with other factors, may create a real risk of persecution. Those of Kurdish ethnicity are regarded with greater suspicion and are reasonably likely to be subjected to heightened scrutiny on return to Iran.
8. For this appellant, the key parts of the Country Guidance in HB (Kurds) are as follows:
“Even ‘low-level’ political activity, or activity that is perceived to be political, such as, by way of example only, mere possession of leaflets espousing or supporting Kurdish rights, if discovered, involves the same risk of persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment.”

“The Iranian authorities demonstrate what could be described as a ‘hair-trigger’ approach to those suspected of or perceived to be involved in Kurdish political activities or support for Kurdish rights. By ‘hair-trigger’ it means that the threshold for suspicion is low and the reaction of the authorities is reasonably likely to be extreme.”
9. We find that the preserved findings of fact, as detailed above, bring the appellant squarely within the ambit of the risk categories identified in HB (Kurds).
10. The appellant has proven that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran.
Notice of Decision
There was an error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, and the decision was set aside. We remake the decision and allow the appeal based on refugee and human rights grounds.

C R Cole
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

7 October 2025