Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001387

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/50729/2024
LP/07858/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 23 September 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON

Between

YM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms S Alban Seren Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms S Rushforth, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre on 10 September 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity owing to the nature of the appeal.

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 appealed against a decision of First-tier Tribunal (FtT) Judges L Murray and Judge C Hayball (the judges) who dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s decision dated 16th April 2022 refusing his protection and human rights claim.
2. The appellant is a citizen of Iraq who was said to have been engaged in a blood feud in Iraq which had been resurrected.
3. The grounds of appeal against the FtT decision advanced
(i) that the judge had failed to consider relevant sections of the CPIN Iraq Blood feuds, honour crimes and tribal violence (Iraq) July 2024 (CPIN 2024) and
(ii) the relocation to Mosul or Basra was equally flawed as the appellant was a Kurd from the IKR.
Conclusions
4. At [42] the judges found that the appellant was not able to show that he was a member of a particular social group and thus considered his claim on humanitarian protection grounds. That finding was not challenged.
5. At [45] the judges, having considered all credibility factors and the evidence accepted the appellant’s account of events in Iraq. The account was that there was an honour crime which was initially settled but in advance of the claim being settled the appellant came to the UK illegally because he was afraid of the family. After his return to Iraq and the settlement was reached, he was able to live peacefully until 2022 when the former girlfriend’s younger brother sought to make new threats to kill the appellant and to restore the family honour. The judges only did not find the influence of the younger brother with the PUK credible.
6. At the hearing before me Ms Rushforth conceded that there had been an error of law in that the judges had cited the relevant CPIN 2024 but had not cited nor realised the import of the content at 4.1.1. Protection was not available in the IKR nor in Iraq itself.
7. Ms Rushforth further submitted that the appeal should be allowed. (The influence of the younger brother with the PUK was not to the point). This was on the basis of the country background material in the Secretary of State’s CPIN 2024 at 4.1.1 which states as follows:
‘4.1. State protection from blood feuds and tribal disputes/violence
4.1.1 In general, the Iraqi government and the Kurdistan Regional Government are neither willing nor able to offer effective protection.’
8. On the basis of these submissions from the Secretary of State, and in view of the credibility findings of the judges which were not challenged on the account of the appellant and the clear statement in the CPIN, I find an error of law in the decision, (owing to the omissions in the decision as per the grounds), set aside the decision, preserve the finding at [45] and allow the appeal (in accordance with Horvath v Secretary of State [2000] UKHL 37) and as indicated below.
Notice of Decision
The judges erred materially for the reasons identified. I set aside the decision pursuant to Section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCE 2007) and remake the decision under section 12(2) (b) (ii) of the TCE 2007.
The appeal is allowed on humanitarian grounds and human rights grounds (Article 3).

Helen Rimington

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
12th September 2025