Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001660

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/59445/2024
LP/10363/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 9th of September 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HOFFMAN
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PARKES

Between

HR
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Main (Counsel, instructed by Barnes, Harrild & Dyer)
For the Respondent: Mr Hulme (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

Heard at Field House on 11th August 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 Iraq. He came to the UK in 2021 and claimed asylum on the basis that he was at risk of an honour crime arising out of his relationship with his cousin and her family’s reaction to that. He also claimed asylum on the basis of his sur place activities and an inability to obtain the necessary identity documentation to facilitate his return to Iraq and the IKR.
2. The Appellant's application had been refused for the reasons given in the Refusal Letter of the 19th of March 2024. The Appellant's appeal was heard by Judge Hawden-Beale at a remote hearing on the 9th of January 2025 and dismissed for the reasons given in the decision promulgated on the 16th of January 2025.
ANONYMITY
3. The First-tier Tribunal made an order for anonymity and no application has been made to set that aside. In maintaining the order for anonymity we have taken into consideration the strong public interest in open justice. However, in this case it is outweighed by the Appellant's interests as his claim relates to international protection.
THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL
4. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on grounds of application of the 24th of January 2025. The first ground is that the Judge having accepted that Appellant had been in a relationship with his cousin and being likely to be at risk from it erred in finding that the Appellant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for that reason. The second ground related to the Appellant's sur place activities and the deletion of his Facebook account by reference to paragraph 53 of the decision, the Judge had not made a finding about the genuineness of his opinions.
5. Thirdly the grounds cover the Appellant's ability to redocument himself. The grounds state that the Judge could not have come to the conclusion that he would have family support “This is because such a finding ignores the Appellant's evidence (see his statement of 17 April 2023, para 19, stitched bundle p.155) that his family members wish for him to take revenge on his cousin’s family to restore family honour.” The grounds go on to assert that the Appellant's family are likely to expect him to engage in the family feud, the decision did not show that the Judge had taken the Appellant's evidence into account on this point.
DISCUSSION – ERROR OF LAW
6. We deal first with ground 1. Following a discussion the Judge accepted the Appellant's account of having been in a relationship with his cousin, that their relationship was discovered in 2021 and his marriage proposal had been rejected by her family, paragraph 35. In the following paragraphs the Judge considered the availability of protection to someone in his position and at paragraph 38 cited the evidence from the relevant CPIN regarding the legal position and the ability of the Police to provide protection. Paragraph 39 summarised the Landinfo report of 2010.
7. The Appellant's claim includes the assertion that his paternal uncle (who is the father of his cousin/girlfriend) is the head of a Brigade for the KDP and is a man of influence and wealth, in contrast the Appellant's father who was poor and a supporter of the PUK. Another paternal uncle helped the Appellant to leave the country. The evidence relating to the Appellant's uncle was discussed in paragraphs 42 to 44. The Judge found that there was no evidence that the Appellant's uncle had come looking for the Appellant or tried to locate the Appellant, only that the Appellant was told his cousin had been killed.
8. The Refusal Letter at page 192 stated that there would not be sufficient protection for the Appellant in Iraq “if the key material facts of your claim were accepted because you fear the Head of Brigade of the KDP and the government whose power and influence is noted…” As the key material facts had been rejected it was considered the Appellant was not at risk.
9. The simple fact that there is a risk does not mean that the risk is sufficient to justify a grant of protection to a claimant. The Judge considered that this lower standard of proof that applied at paragraph 45. In paragraph 46 the Judge then considered the evidence relating to the risk the Appellant faced and found that there was no evidence that the Appellant was being sought, there was no one to persecute him and no need for him to seek state protection. That finding was also made in the context of the Judge rejecting the Appellant's claim that he had no contact with his own family because they had disowned him. The conclusion in paragraph 47 that the Appellant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear was open to the Judge on the evidence and for the reasons given. Those findings were reasonably open to the Judge on the evidence before her.
10. The second ground concerns the Appellant's sur place activities. These were considered in the decision at paragraphs 48 to 54. The Appellant had only opened his Facebook account in 2023 and as the Judge noted there were significant periods of inactivity. There was no mention of any groups supporting Kurdish rights of which the Appellant is a member. The entries were limited as the Judge noted and there was no indication of the number of followers he had. The only demonstration the Appellant had attended was concerned with the British Government’s proposed removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda and the Appellant had taken steps to conceal his identity.
11. While the Appellant had disclosed his Facebook activity log in accordance with XX (PJAK, sur place activities, Facebook) CG [2022] UKUT23 (IAC), the Judge found that there was a lengthy period of inactivity between the 9th of December 2023 and 27th May 2024 and, post-May 2024 there was “no evidence that have liked, shared or commented on the posts he had uploaded.”
12. The decision has to be read fairly and as a whole. The Appellant had not engaged in anti-regime demonstrations and this is Iraq, not Iran, it is not the case that it is not possible to express any opinion. The posts provided were incomplete and very limited with no evidence of their reach. The Judge’s conclusion at paragraph 53 was that his profile was such that the authorities would be unaware of it and that he did not have a well-founded fear. This was open to the Judge on the limited evidence that the Appellant had provided.
13. The third ground is misconceived. The reference in paragraph 15 of the Grounds is to the Appellant's witness statement of the 17th of April 2023, at paragraph 19. The Ground asserts that the Appellant's family wish for him to take revenge on his cousin’s family to restore family honour. Paragraph 19 actually reads “My mother was released but my uncle and cousin wanted me to take revenge and restore family honour by killing me” (emphasis added).
14. We do not read that paragraph as meaning that the Appellant was to take any action against his uncle and/or cousin. The last three words make it clear that the role of the Appellant was to be the victim of his uncle and cousin who would be avenging their family’s dishonour by killing the Appellant in addition to having already killed their daughter/sister. The suggestion in the Grounds that the Appellant’s family could not be considered to be sympathetic to him is based on a misreading of the evidence. The Judge’s finding that the Appellant’s family was justified on the correct reading of paragraph 19 of his witness statement.
15. A more justified criticism of the Judge is that she referred to SMO (CG) [2019] UKUT 400 (IAC), SMO1, rather than SMO & KSP (Civil status documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC), SMO 2. However, the question is whether the Judge applied the correct test and in this respect we are satisfied that she did. The question for the Judge was whether the Appellant would be able to be redocumented facilitating his travel around and access to services in the IKR. In finding that he was not estranged from his family and that they would continue to support him it followed that he would be able to be properly redocumented.
16. The reference to SMO 1 was an error but it was not material. The Judge applied the correct test to the circumstances and on the findings that had been made in respect of the Appellant's claim the Judge was entitled to make the findings set out in paragraph 55 of the decision.
Notice of Decision
17. This appeal is dismissed.
Judge Parkes
Judge Parkes

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Dated: 22nd August 2025