Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000948
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/65132/2023
IA/00716/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 9th December 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE

Between

AHMED SALIM NAFEA KURACHI
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Martin
For the Respondent: Mr Mullen, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Edinburgh on 5 June 2025

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a Kurdish male citizen of Iraq. His application for international protection was refused by the Secretary of State by a decision dated 5 December 2023. He appealed to the First-tier Tribunal which in a decision dated 21 August 2024 dismissed his appeal. The appellant now appeals to the Upper Tribunal.

2. Permission was granted by Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Chapman:

The grounds of appeal assert at [1] that the judge left out of account material matters and took into consideration immaterial matters; arguably conflated aspects of the Appellant's evidence and failed to draw a distinction between articles and publications from a website and personal posts made by the Appellant, given that it was his accepted involvement with the New Generation Party [NGP] and his involvement in the administration of a political website that was shut down by the authorities which was the basis of his claim and not the social media posts which were only submitted to demonstrate the Appellant's opposition to the regime prior to joining the NGP. It is further asserted at [2] that the FtTJ erred in arriving at conclusions unsupported by any background evidence or information when considering the Appellant's online activity in that he conflated the Appellant's personal social media posts with the website he administered, failing to take into account that the website was shut down and removed by the authorities and there was no good reason to suggest that the Appellant would be able to recover evidence of the website. At [3] and [4] the FtTJ considered the CG decision in XX PJAK but this is an irrelevant consideration as it is not the Appellant's case that he had a facebook (sic) account. At [5] the FtTJ found that the screenshots produced by the Appellant were a poor representation of his social media activities but failed to appreciate that these were historic and submitted only as evidence of his long opposition to the regime. At [6] it is asserted that these errors have resulted in further errors in relation to contact with family in Iraq and the FtTJ failed to properly assess his credibility.

The grounds of appeal raise arguable errors of law in the decision and reasons of the FtTJ. It is arguable that the FtTJ failed to appreciate the purpose of the social media posts from 2014 and 2015 in the name of Ahmed Ozan. It is arguable that the FtTJ conflated the Appellant's social media activity with his role as administrator of a website and that the consideration of XX PJAK was irrelevant in this case. It is arguable that the FtTJ's findings on the core claim infected his consideration at [31] of the Appellant's assertions that he is undocumented.

3. I find that the grounds of appeal are without merit. Contrary to what is asserted in the grounds, I am satisfied that the judge did fully understand the appellant’s claim and evidence. It had been the appellant’s own evidence that he had a Facebook account. In his asylum interview at [30-31], the appellant was asked about his use of social media:

30. Question:
Which social media did you use?
30. Response
Facebook
31. Question
Was this just through your own profile or did you control a group or
page linked to the party?
31. Response
I had a page like from there were three people like admin who
organised protests and held files and published files and information
related to the government. We were publishing everything about the
government. [my emphasis]

The appellant claimed that he used a page on a Facebook account which was administered by others. The judge’s citation of XX (PJAK - sur place activities - Facebook) Iran CG [2022] UKUT 23 (IAC) was therefore not an indication that the judge had failed to understand the appellant’s case but was relevant in so far that it addresses the use of Facebook (there is also nothing in the decision to indicate that the judge believed that the appellant relied on any sur place activities rather than social media activity in Iran). The judge assessed the case put to him by the appellant and reached findings of fact on the evidence which available to him.

4. I am also satisfied that it was open to the judge to find that the appellant’s credibility was diminished by his failure or refusal to obtain evidence about his internet activities by other means [10, 19, 20, 21]. The judge did not err in law when he observed that the appellant could have ‘obtained [evidence] from persons who interacted with him electronically in the past.’ [21] The grounds of appeal are silent as to these matters which legitimately informed the judge’s credibility assessment.

5. It further follows that, contrary to what is asserted in the grounds, the judge’s credibility assessment is not flawed. It also follows that the judge’s finding that the appellant has access to identity documents [29-31] is not infected by any error and therefore stands as does the judge’s conclusion that ‘there is no reason why [the appellant’s] family members cannot meet him at the airport and accompany him home producing whatever documentation is necessary for his to live in the IKR.’

6. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.

Notice of Decision

The appeal is dismissed

C. N. Lane

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Dated: 2 October 2025