Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001635

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/63627/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

4th November 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LODATO
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GREER

Between

SQ
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs Johnrose, a solicitor
For the Respondent: Mr Tan, a Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 7 October 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. In a decision dated 31 July 2025, a differently constituted panel of the Upper Tribunal allowed the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of a judge of the First-tier Tribunal. Upon setting aside the decision as involving a material error of law, it was decided that the underlying decision should be remade in the Upper Tribunal. This remaking decision must be read in conjunction with the error of law decision which sets out in detail the procedural and factual background which led to the decision which is now before us.

Anonymity
2. There is a presumption in favour of Open Justice. However, this case concerns the Appellant’s application for international protection which is based on his involvement in a culturally inappropriate relationship. The protection risk outweighs the public interest in the publication of his name in connection with these proceedings.
The Background
3. The background to the case is set out in the papers before the Tribunal. It is not necessary to recite them here. By way of a brief summary, the Appellant is a national of Iraq of Kurdish ethnicity originating from Tuz Khurmatu in the Salah Ad Din governorate of Government Controlled Iraq. It is his case that he involved himself in a pre-marital affair with a young woman of Turkmen ethnicity (‘Z’). The Appellant wished to marry Z and sent members of his family to propose marriage. Z’s family rejected the Appellant’s family’s marriage proposals. In August 2021 the Appellant had sexual intercourse with Z. Z told her sister about this, the Appellant believes, to force the family’s hand to consent to the marriage. Instead, Z’s family reacted badly and went looking for the Appellant. The Appellant fled Iraq fearing that if Z’s family were to catch him, he would be at risk of suffering serious harm.
4. The Appellant left Iraq on 15th September 2021. He arrived in the United Kingdom on 8th November 2021 and claimed asylum upon arrival. In a decision dated 6th November 2023, the Respondent refused the Appellant’s application for asylum.
5. The Appellant appealed to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. His appeal was dismissed. He appealed against that decision and in a written decision promulgated on 31st July 2025, Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede, the Upper Tribunal set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. The matter was retained in the Upper Tribunal for the decision to be remade.
The Hearing
6. This matter came before us for an in-person hearing at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre. The papers in the case are to be found in the 663 page Composite Bundle prepared by the Appellant prior to the Error of Law Hearing. In addition, the Respondent filed an interview transcript and the Appellant filed a supplemental skeleton argument. We heard oral evidence from the Appellant, who was assisted by an interpreter in the Sorani Dialect of the Kurdish Language. We heard submissions and at the end of the hearing we reserved our decision.
Issues
7. At the hearing before us, Mr Tan recognised, by reference to paragraph 2.2.3 of the Respondent’s Country policy and information note: Iraq Blood feuds, honour crimes and tribal violence, Iraq, July 2024 that potential victims of honour crimes share an immutable characteristic and, therefore, form a particular social group if a disjunctive approach to the question is taken. He also recognised, by reference to Paragraph 4.3.1 of that same document, that the authorities in Federal Iraq are neither willing nor able to protect someone in the Appellant’s circumstances. Therefore, the following issues fall to be determined in this appeal:
i. Is it reasonably likely that the Appellant engaged in a premarital affair with Z?
ii. Is it reasonably likely that Z’s family would seek to harm the Appellant as a matter of honour?
iii. Is it reasonably likely that the Appellant tendered his original CSID to a travel agent in Turkey?
iv. Could the Appellant reasonably be expected to relocate to Erbil in the IKR?
8. Mr Tan agreed that if issues i – iii were to be resolved in the Appellant’s favour, then the Appellant would be entitled to succeed in his claim. It is only if we were to find in the Appellant’s favour in respect of issues i and ii, and against him on issue iii, that it would be necessary to determine issue iv.
Findings and Reasons
9. Whilst we are bound to be selective in our references to the evidence before the Tribunal, we have taken all of the evidence into account, whether or not we refer to it directly in this decision. Where it has been necessary to reach findings of fact over contested issues, we have done so by considering the evidence in the round and determining whether the Appellant’s claims are reasonably likely to be true.
Issues i and ii
10. We consider it appropriate to address issues i and ii together. For the reasons that follow, we find the Appellant to be a generally reliable witness whose evidence, when considered in the round alongside the other material before us, is entitled to significant weight.
11. Firstly, the Appellant has provided a detailed and coherent account throughout the examination of his claim. His narrative has remained consistent across his screening interview, substantive asylum interview, witness statement, and oral evidence before us.
12. Secondly, the Appellant’s account is broadly plausible when assessed against the background evidence. In particular, we accept that relationships between young people from differing ethnic and religious backgrounds, such as a Sunni Kurd and a Shia Turkmen, may be viewed with hostility by more conservative families. Mr Tan helpfully directed us to the Respondent’s Country Policy and Information Note: Iraq: Blood Feuds, Honour Crimes and Tribal Violence (July 2024), which supports the proposition that Turkmen families are often more conservative, and that honour-based violence remains a real risk in such contexts.
13. Mr Tan submitted that the Appellant’s account was inherently improbable in several respects. He argued that it was implausible that Z’s father, having gone to the Appellant’s workplace, would not have either waited for him there or attempted to locate him at his home. However, this submission rests on the assumption that Z’s father knew both the Appellant’s work schedule and his home address. There is no evidence before us to support that assumption. As the Appellant himself stated in evidence, he cannot account for the behaviour of third parties. We agree. In the absence of any evidence that Z’s father had knowledge of the Appellant’s whereabouts, we do not consider this submission to undermine the reliability of the Appellant’s account.
14. Mr Tan also contended that it was implausible that the Appellant could have obtained an Iraqi passport without attending the passport office in person, and at short notice. However, Mrs Johnrose referred us to paragraph 6.10.3 of the Respondent’s Country Policy and Information Note: Internal Relocation, Civil Documentation and Returns, Iraq (September 2025), which confirms that passports may be obtained on the basis of counterfeit documentation. Paragraph 6.6 of the same document further notes that fraudulent identity documents, including passports, are cheap and readily available. In light of this background evidence, and applying the appropriate standard of proof, we do not consider the Appellant’s account in this respect to be implausible.
15. Thirdly, the Appellant’s evidence remained consistent in respect of the core of his claim. While there were minor discrepancies in peripheral details, such as the precise date of the sexual encounter with Z, we do not consider these to undermine the overall credibility of his account. Mr Tan referred us to the Appellant’s interview, in which he stated that the incident occurred on Friday 28 August 2021. It is correct that this date was, in fact, a Saturday. However, we accept the Appellant’s explanation that he was unsure of the precise date and was attempting to recall events that occurred under considerable stress. We do not regard this as a material inconsistency.
16. We do, however, agree with Mr Tan that the Appellant’s evidence regarding the date of passport issuance was inconsistent. At various points, the Appellant stated that the passport was issued in 2020 and, alternatively, in 2021. He also gave conflicting accounts of his age at the time, saying he was 23 on one occasion and 24 on another. We accept that these are inconsistencies, but we consider them to be relatively minor and not central to the core of the Appellant’s claim.
17. As Mrs Johnrose submitted, the Appellant was not challenged in cross-examination on the central elements of his account: the existence of the relationship or the threats made by Z’s father. This absence of challenge is a relevant factor in our assessment of the Appellant’s credibility.
18. We are required by statute to consider whether the Appellant’s general credibility is undermined by his conduct. The Respondent relies on the Appellant’s failure to claim asylum in France, where he spent approximately 20 days, as a factor damaging to his credibility. We accept that the Appellant had a reasonable opportunity to claim asylum in both Italy and France. His explanation is that he was advised by the agent, engaged by his uncle to facilitate his journey, not to do so. We find this explanation plausible. The Appellant is not an experienced traveller and was undertaking a dangerous journey by irregular means. Nevertheless, we consider it appropriate to attach some weight to this factor, which we take into account in the round when assessing the overall reliability of his evidence.
19. Having stood back and considered all of the evidence in the round, we find that the Appellant’s account is detailed, internally consistent, and plausible when assessed against the background evidence. While there are some minor inconsistencies, and while his general credibility is statutorily affected by his conduct in transit, these matters do not carry sufficient weight to displace the factors that weigh in his favour. We therefore attach significant weight to the Appellant’s evidence and find it appropriate to give him the benefit of the doubt in respect of what he says occurred in Iraq.
20. Accordingly, we find it reasonably likely that the Appellant did, as he claims, engage in a pre-marital relationship with Z, and that, as a consequence, her family would seek to harm him if he were to return to Tuz Khurmatu.

Issue iii
21. At the hearing before us, the Appellant gave clear and consistent evidence that he tendered his original CSID to the travel agent who arranged his irregular journey across Europe and that he would have no way of retrieving it. This account was detailed and aligned with paragraph 37 of his witness statement. These are all matters which weigh in the Appellant’s favour.
22. We note that in his Appeal Skeleton Argument (at paragraph 11), the Appellant stated that he had left his CSID with his family in Iraq. However, we observe that this document was settled by his legal advisors, and not by the Appellant himself. We accept his explanation in his evidence before us that this was against his instructions. We do not consider this inconsistency to be of sufficient weight to undermine the credibility of his account, particularly in light of the consistency and clarity of his later evidence.
23. We reject Mr Tan’s submission that it is inherently implausible that the Appellant would have carried his CSID with him when he left Iraq. The Appellant’s evidence was that his uncle advised him to take the document in case it was needed. In our judgment, this is a plausible explanation, particularly given the prevalence of government and paramilitary checkpoints in Northern Iraq, and the importance of identity documentation in facilitating movement.
24. The Appellant left Iraq via Erbil and crossed the land border into Turkey. There is no evidence to suggest that Z’s father, a member of the central Iraqi military, would have had the authority to prevent a Kurdish individual from leaving the IKR. By contrast, there is ample reason to believe that Kurdish Peshmerga forces might have prevented the Appellant’s onward travel had he not been in possession of identity documents, had he encountered them. When set in its proper context, the Appellant’s uncle’s advice makes perfect sense.
25. We therefore find that it is reasonably likely that the Appellant did carry his CSID with him and that it was surrendered to the agent in Turkey. As Mr Tan quite properly accepted at the hearing before us, this removes any possibility of the Appellant being able to obtain a replacement CSID either before returning to Iraq, or within a reasonable timeframe after his return. This being the case, relocation is not an option.
26. As we have resolved all of the contested issues in the Appellant’s favour, he succeeds in his asylum appeal.
Notice of Decision
On remaking the decision, we ALLOW the appeal on asylum grounds

Jonathan Greer

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

22 October 2025