Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001024

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/65554/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 13 August 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PINDER

Between

K M Z
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M Hussain, legal representative, Fountain Solicitors.
For the Respondent: Mr Lawson, Senior Presenting Officer.

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 24 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 the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (‘the FtT / the Judge’) dated 16th January 2025, in which the Judge dismissed the Appellant’s protection and human rights appeal.
2. I have maintained the Anonymity Order in favour of the Appellant. I consider that the specific facts of this appeal, the maintenance of the integrity of the United Kingdom’s immigration system and the Appellant having raised a claim to international protection, are such that an anonymity order is a justified derogation from the principle of open justice.
Factual background and procedural history
3. The Appellant is an Iraqi citizen, of Kurdish ethnicity, aged 25 years old at the time of the FtT appeal hearing. He entered the UK in July 2020 and claimed asylum. The Appellant’s protection and human rights claim was refused by the Respondent on 11th December 2023 and the Appellant appealed that decision to the FtT.
4. In summary, the Appellant’s claim is grounded in his claim to have witnessed a Turkish airforce bombardment near his home area in the IKR and to be at risk as a result of the PKK suspecting that the Appellant was involved in passing information to the Turkish authorities, which in turn facilitated or assisted the bombing.
5. As part of his protection claim, the Appellant also pursued a claim under Article 3 ECHR arising out of his lack of documentation to enable his return and/or internal travel and use of services in Iraq and the IKR.
6. The Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s decision of 11th December 2023 was heard by the Judge on 7th January 2025.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal
7. After providing a summary of the Appellant’s evidence and accounts and setting out concerns in respect of the same, the Judge accepted at [26] that there had been a bombing raid in which five PKK members died and which was witnessed by the Appellant. However, the Judge confirmed in the same paragraph that the Judge was not satisfied that the Appellant had demonstrated that the PKK were interested in him following this bombing.
8. At [29], the Judge recorded that the Appellant had been broadly consistent about the circumstances of his claim and the Judge considered that the Appellant had been open and frank as a witness. In the same paragraph, the Judge found however that the Appellant’s account was vague and lacking in detail initially and had developed as his case had progressed. The Judge added that the Appellant had embellished his account as he was going along and that there were some significant difficulties that arose in his account, which undermined its credibility. The Judge further drew an adverse inference from the Appellant's failure to provide certain evidence, which the Judge considered was reasonably available to him.
9. At [30], the Judge considered matters arising under s.8 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 and found that failing to claim asylum in other countries, through which the appellant had travelled undermined, his credibility. At [31], the Judge brought this together and found he Appellant not credible.
The Appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal
10. The Appellant applied for permission to appeal raising no less than nine grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision and findings. These effectively complain that the Judge failed to give adequate reasons for his findings and concerns adverse to the credibility of the Appellant’s account.
11. In granting permission to appeal, a different judge of the FtT noted that it was arguable that the Judge erred in law at [21] by failing to give sufficient reasons for categorising the Appellant’s account of seeing an air bombing as confused and contradictory and further, that no reasons had arguably been given for the Judge rejecting this account as not credible. The Judge purported to refuse permission to appeal in respect of the Appellant’s fourth ground – arguing with the standard of proof applied by the Judge – but this was not reflected in the actual decision of the judge, pursuant to Safi and others (permission to appeal decisions) [2018] UKUT 00388 (IAC). In any event, this omission did not prove material in light of the parties’ agreement as detailed below.
12. In response, the Respondent did not file and serve a reply under Rule 24 of the Procedure Rules.
13. At the hearing, Mr Lawson, on behalf of the Respondent, indicated that he was in agreement with the Appellant’s appeal and that it was not possible to decipher from the Judge’s decision their reasons for finding against the Appellant and the credibility of his account. Mr Lawson was content therefore to concede that material errors of law had been made by the Judge for the reasons pursued by the Appellant in the eight grounds of appeal that had attracted permission. Mr Lawson was also of the view that it was appropriate for the appeal to be sent back to the First-tier Tribunal for re-making afresh before a different judge considering the need to undertake a full credibility assessment again.
14. In these circumstances, it was not necessary for me to hear from Mr Hussain, on behalf of the Appellant. I also indicated at the hearing that I was satisfied that Mr Lawson’s concession was fair and appropriate. I also agreed with the parties’ positions that it was appropriate, in line with the relevant guidance and Practice Direction, to remit the matter back to the FtT.
15. In light of the above, I am satisfied that the Judge made material error(s) of law and the FtT’s decision promulgated on 16th January 2025 shall be set aside, with no findings of fact preserved. As considered above, it is also appropriate that the matter be sent back to the FtT for re-making, to be heard by a different judge.
Notice of Decision
16. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 16th January 2025 contained material errors of law and is set aside.
17. The appeal is to be remitted back to the FtT for remaking afresh before a different judge.

Sarah Pinder

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

07.08.2025