Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001876

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/68637/2023
LP/11607/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 8 September 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HOFFMAN
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FARRELLY

Between

MSM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
AND

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms S Jegarahah, Counsel instructed by Logan Kingsley, Solicitors.
For the Respondent: Ms J Isherwood, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 26 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 or any member of his family. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision for First-tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese (“the judge”) promulgated on 3rd March 2025 dismissing his appeal against the respondent’s decision dated 20th December 2023 to refuse his asylum and human rights claims.
Anonymity
2. The First-tier Tribunal made an anonymity order in this appeal, and we have considered whether it is appropriate for that order to continue pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (as amended). Having taken into account Guidance Note 2022 No.2: Anonymity Orders and Hearings in Private, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to make such an order because the appellant has made an application for international protection and we consider that the UK’s obligations towards applicants for international protection and the need to protect the confidentiality of the asylum process outweigh the public interest in open justice at this stage in the proceedings. Furthermore, there are children are involved and there has been no application to the contrary. We have decided therefore to maintain the original anonymity direction.
The claim
3. The appellant was born in 1991 and is a citizen of Iraq. He is from the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.
4. According to the appellant, he inherited land in Suleymania following the death of his father. He then started to receive telephone calls from individuals wanting to buy the land. He realised they were members of the PUK. The land had a development value to a leading member in the PUK who had adjoining land. He met with them on the 25th of January 2020. When he did not want to sell the land, they became aggressive. He was struck on the head with the butt of a gun, sustaining around 20 fractures. He was hospitalised and required surgery. Then, on the 11th of February 2020, members of the PUK turned up at his house to force him to sign the land over. A scuffle developed, resulting in the appellant being stabbed in the hand and leg. He made a complaint to the police, but nothing happened. The family decided to leave. They flew from Sulaymaniyah to Istanbul with the help of an agent.
5. On the 12th of September 2020 the appellant claimed asylum in the UK, including his wife and their children as his dependents. His wife gave birth to their third child, a boy, in the United Kingdom on the 22nd of March 2022. The date of claim predates the NABA provisions. He said that he did not have documentation with him, but he had been issued with a CSID card which was in Iraq. It was indicated that his wife had medical issues including an issue with stones and mental health difficulties. She had surgery for the former in the United Kingdom.
The refusal
6. The claim was refused on the 20th of December 2023. The respondent accepted the appellant’s identity but not the claim made. The respondent referred to the absence of evidence to support the claim. He had provided no documentation confirming ownership of land. He had not provided evidence to confirm the account of being threatened. He also had failed to provide evidence about the injuries or of any complaint to the police.
7. The appellant appealed the decision. The respondent reviewed the decision and maintained the refusal, stating that the appellant have failed to reliably establish his account was credible. It was said even if the claims were true, he could relocate to an area controlled by the KDP rather than the PUK. His claim of being unable to access documentation and of having no contact with his family was not accepted as true.
The First-tier hearing
8. The appellant’s appeal was listed for a face-to-face hearing at Hatton Cross on the 23rd of January 2025 before First-tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese. Both parties were represented. The appeal was dismissed. The judge did not accept the truth of the underlying claim. The judge referred to the absence of any medical evidence of the appellant being attacked. The appellant had provided photographs indicating scars to his head, but the judge made the point they were not contemporaneous, and the scarring could have been other causes. The judge referred to inconsistencies about what his alleged attackers were wearing and whether they were in uniform. The judge also referred to discrepancies as to whether he received medical attention in a hospital or pharmacy. The judge did not find it credible that he could have remained in the country for seven days and to leave with all his family if of adverse interest to a leading member of the PUK.
9. The judge found that the appellant had not shown documentation could not be obtained with the assistance of his family in Iraq. It was suggested they could meet him at the airport on his return, and he could then use these documents to travel on and obtain the new form of INID. The judge concluded he faced no risk from either the PUK or the Kurdish regional government.
10. The judge said little weight was being attached to the witness statement from the appellant’s wife as she had not been tendered for cross-examination. The judge took the view that his wife could receive adequate treatment in Iraq. In relation to Article 8, the judge found the decision proportionate.
11. The application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal takes issue with most of the points raised by the judge and it was contended the judge’s credibility assessment was flawed. It was said that the judge erred in law by requiring corroboration of the injuries the appellant described. It had said that the men he met where armed and dressed in a black uniform and there was no discrepancy in his description. The appellant had also said that the local pharmacist attended at his in-law’s home, and he did not go to a hospital. It was contended the judge failed to adequately reason the rejection of the photographic evidence of the injuries to the appellant’s head and hand. Regarding remaining in the country for seven days, the appellant’s claim was that he was hiding in the basement of his in-law’s home.
12. The judge made no reference background country information in relation to checks and his ability to leave the country with his family. It was also argued that the judge was wrong to attach little weight to his wife’s statement because she had not been tendered for cross-examination. There were reasons for her non-attendance, namely, recent surgery and the care of young children. It was also submitted that the judge had failed to engage was the appellant's claim that he had lost contact with his family and so could not obtain documentation through them. The judge took the view that his wife could obtain medical care on return but there was no reference to background country information on this. Finally, it was submitted that the judge failed to properly consider the best interests of the children.

The proceedings before the Upper Tribunal
13. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Horton on 25 April 2025 on the basis that it was arguable that the judge:
(i) made findings unsupported by evidence;
(ii) did not give adequate reasons for the view on his wife's medical issues;
(iii) failed to carry out a proper balancing exercise; and
(iv) failed to properly consider the best interests of the children.
14. There has been no rule 24 response by the respondent.
Submissions
15. Ms S Jegarahah, on behalf of he appellant, repeated the grounds upon which permission had been sought. She submitted that there was a general lack of care in this decision, as evidenced by the judge getting the name and the dates of birth wrong at the start. She submitted that the judge was wrong to attach little weight to the statement from the appellant's wife because she had not attended the hearing. She had undergone surgery a month before the hearing which resulted in physical difficulties and had the care of the young children. She submitted that the discrepancies raised by the judge, including whether the assailants were wearing uniforms and where the appellant was treated for his injuries had been covered by the appellant in his written evidence. The appellant could not take documentary evidence with him when he fled Iraq, she said, because he had to leave the country in a hurry.
16. Ms J Isherwood sought to defend the judgement, stating the appellant had not provided evidence about the scarring to his head and hand. She suggested his assailants might have been content for him to leave the country if they wanted his land. She said all these matters were for the judge to decide.
17. Ms Jegarajah submitted that if we found an error of law the appeal should be remitted back to the First-tier Tribunal for de novo hearing. Ms Isherwood, however, submitted that the findings in relation to Article 8 and the wife’s medical conditions should be preserved and the matter could therefore be retained by the Upper Tribunal for remaking.
Consideration
18. In deciding whether the Judge’s decision involved the making of a material error of law, we have reminded ourselves of the principles set out in a long line of cases, including Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 201, at [26], Yalcin v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 74, at [50] and [51], Gadinala v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 1410, at [46] and [47], and Volpi & Anor v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464, at [2-4] and of the danger of not looking at the evidence, and the reasoning, as a whole. We bear in mind the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Ullah [26(i)] that the Upper Tribunal should not rush to find an error of law simply because it might have reached a different conclusion on the facts or expressed themselves differently.
19. Having looked at the decision as a whole and considered the specific challenges made, we are satisfied that it has been shown that First-tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese made material errors of law. The issues raised by his representatives go beyond disagreements with the outcome.
20. We find that the judge did not adequately engage with the issues and the evidence arising in the appeal and failed to give adequate reasons for his findings. We give three examples below, each of which amount to a material error in his treatment of the asylum and protection claim.
21. The judge states at [11] that the appellant’s family can help him to obtain a CSID or INID on return to Iraq. However, the judge does not engage at all with the appellant’s claim that he has lost contact with his family there.
22. At [12], the judge finds that the appellant gave an inconsistent account regarding the uniforms his attackers were wearing. However, the judge does not specify what this inconsistent evidence was. We are therefore satisfied that that finding is inadequately reasoned.
23. At [14], the judge finds that the appellant’s claim was undermined by the fact that he managed to leave the country without difficulty. We are satisfied that the judge’s finding is unreasoned and unsupported by any reference to country information.
We are therefore satisfied that the findings made in relation to the asylum and protection claims should be set aside in their entirety. While Ms Isherwood had argued that the Article 8 and medical findings in relation to the appellant’s wife should be preserved, we have decided that they too should be set aside. That is because the human rights elements of the appeal will need to be considered on the date of the hearing. By the time the new hearing is listed before the First-tier Tribunal, there may have been material changes to the family’s private life in the UK and in relation to the wife’s medical conditions. It is therefore fair that these are taken into account by the next judge. We are therefore satisfied that any appeal would have to be heard de novo.
Remaking
24. We are satisfied that none of the First-tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese’s findings can be preserved. When considering whether the remaking of the appeal should be remitted or retained, we have had regard to the extent of the evidential assessment and fact finding necessary, which will encompass the asylum, humanitarian and human rights claims. As the case will need to be considered de novo, this leads us to the conclusion that the remaking should be dealt with in the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of material errors of law.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside with no findings preserved.
The appeal is to be reheard by the First-tier Tribunal at Hatton Cross.

Francis J Farrelly

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

1st August 2025