Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER

Case No: UI-2025-001983
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/53608/2023
LP/10065/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 23rd December 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’CALLAGHAN

Between

HA (IRAQ)
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M Schwenk, Counsel, instructed by AB Legal Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr A Tan, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester on 2 December 2025

ANONYMITY ORDER

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

Introduction

1. The appellant appeals a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his international protection and human rights appeal. The decision was sent to the parties on 10 January 2025.

2. Upper Tribunal Judge Owens granted permission to appeal by a decision sent to the parties on 5 September 2025.

Anonymity Order

3. The First-tier Tribunal issued an anonymity order. Neither party requested that it be set aside. I observe that the appellant seeks international protection and consider that his private life rights protected under article 8 ECHR presently outweigh the right of the public to know his identity as a party to these proceedings. The latter right is protected by article 10 ECHR.

4. The anonymity order is detailed above.

Relevant Facts

5. The appellant is an Iraqi Kurd. He claims to be at real risk of persecution from non-State agents, namely his wife’s family, consequent to an honour dispute. He left Iraq in 2018 and following his arrival claimed asylum in the United Kingdom on 11 May 2020. The respondent refused his claim by a decision dated 3 September 2021 and First-tier Tribunal Hands dismissed his appeal by a decision dated 20 June 2022.

6. Fresh representations were submitted in December 2022, with the appellant relying upon an arrest warrant said to have been issued in 2018, photographs of scars and evidence as to his difficulties in obtaining replacement identity documents. The respondent accepted the representations as constituting a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules but did not grant him leave. The appellant exercised statutory appeal rights.

First-tier Tribunal Decision

7. The appeal came before the First-tier Tribunal sitting in Newcastle on 26 November 2024. The appellant attended and gave evidence. The First-tier Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not at risk from his wife’s family as claimed and that his CSID was available to him in Iraq through family members.

8. Relevant to this appeal is the First-tier Tribunal’s consideration of the arrest warrant at [15] to [25], and particularly the final two paragraphs:

“24. The document submitted by the Appellant is not an original and therefore the Respondent makes the valid point that its authenticity cannot be ascertained. The Appellant was asked where the original document is and he replied, “on me”. He meant on his mobile phone, but this is not the original document. The Appellant’s representatives will have known the importance of producing the original warrant, but it has not been provided.

25. I have no hesitation in finding that the arrest cannot be relied upon. The Appellant has already been found not to be credible. The document predates the previous hearing, it is not an original document, and its provenance has not been established.”

9. Mr Tan confirmed before me that the respondent first raised an issue as to the document not being an original in her review, dated 4 June 2024:

“12. Additionally, the A provided an arrest warrant (RB, Page 45 – 46), which the R continues to rely on the findings made by the R in the RFRL (RB, Pages 11 – 12). The A submits they received the document from their brother (ASA, Page 4). These documents have been considered in line with the case-law of Tanveer Ahmed IAT 2002 UKIAT 00439 STARRED. This means that it is for the A to show that any documents the A submits in support of their case can be relied on. The A’s documents have not been viewed in isolation. This means they have been considered as part of all the available evidence that they relate to.

13. The documents submitted are all copies and not the original documents, therefore the authenticity of them cannot be ascertained. The onus is on the A to provide evidence which can be relied upon, the R does not accept photocopied documents as reliable evidence. Additionally, the A has not provided any evidence that these are official documents.”

Grounds of Appeal

10. By concise grounds of appeal the appellant raises three challenges:

i. The First-tier Tribunal made perverse or irrational findings on a matter or matters that were material to the outcome.

ii. The First-tier Tribunal failed to give reasons or any adequate reasons for findings on material matters.

iii. The First-tier Tribunal committed or permitted a procedural or other irregularity capable of making a material difference to the outcome of the fairness of the proceedings.

11. Complaint is made that the First-tier Tribunal did not consider relevant evidence contained in the appellant’s bundle, namely an article written by Sharon Otterman and published by the Council on Foreign Relations on 2 February 2005 titled, “Iraq: The Role of Tribes”. Ms Otterman is a journalist.

12. Relevant to my decision below, the grounds further contend:

“2. [The Judge] also makes adverse findings in respect of the arrest warrant because he did not provide the original arrest warrant [24]. However, this is not correct. The Appellant provided the original warrant to the Respondent at his further submissions appointment together with the rest of his supporting evidence. The Appellant’s documents were then scanned and returned to him, as is the current procedure at the Further Submissions Unit. The Respondent has therefore had the original in her possession and ought to be aware of this. The Respondent therefore had the opportunity to check its authenticity. It is submitted that it is therefore procedurally unfair to the Appellant to have an adverse finding made against him on this basis.”

13. I have sympathy for Mr Tan who became aware that the respondent had filed two, contradictory rule 24 responses a day apart. The second document accepts that there is a material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s failure to expressly consider Ms Otterman’s article that was addressed in oral submissions at the hearing by both the appellant’s counsel and the Presenting Officer. However, the First-tier Tribunal’s decision in respect of the arrest warrant was defended.

Discussion

14. I allowed the appeal at the hearing, to extent of setting aside the First-tier Tribunal decision in its entirety. I now provide my reasons.

15. I observe the respondent’s position as to the article. It was relied upon by the appellant to establish his having been protected a Sheikh, a matter upon which he had previously been disbelieved by Judge Hands. Both parties addressed the document at the hearing. The subsequent failure by the First-tier Tribunal to consider it when assessing the appellant’s claim is accepted by the respondent to be a material error of law.

16. As to the circumstances of the arrest warrant, it is unfortunate that the First-tier Tribunal did not clarify with the appellant’s counsel at the hearing as to whether the original document was in the possession of either the appellant or his solicitors.

17. Mr Schwenk was permitted time to take instructions from his solicitor, who confirmed the veracity of the grounds as to the original document having been presented to the respondent, who scanned it and then returned it at the time the further representations were served in person. Mr Schwenk was instructed that the appellant continues to have the original document in his possession. At my direction, Mr Schwenk’s instructing solicitor, Mr Anthony Brindley, confirmed the same in a statement dated 3 December 2025 which was filed with the Tribunal on the same day.

18. I find that on the evidence before me the First-tier Tribunal erred in fact, and therefore materially erred in law, in concluding that the appellant had not provided the original arrest warrant to the respondent: R (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 982.

19. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision is adversely affected by the identified material errors of law, and the proper course is to set it aside in its entirety.

Resumed Hearing

20. Both Mr Schwenk and Mr Tan indicated that the resumed hearing should take place in the First-tier Tribunal.

21. I observe the guidance in Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC). I consider the nature or extent of any judicial fact finding which is necessary in order for the decision in this appeal to be re-made is such that, having regard to the overriding objective in rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, it is appropriate to remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal.

22. The appellant presently resides in Lancashire. I agree with Mr Schwenk that it is appropriate for the hearing of this matter to be transferred to the First-tier Tribunal sitting in Manchester.

Directions

23. Observing the limited evidence presently provided by the appellant as to the circumstances in which the arrest warrant was secured and how he received it in the United Kingdom, I make directions in respect of further evidence.

24. Consequent to events before the First-tier Tribunal, I further direct that the appellant brings the original arrest warrant to the resumed hearing. It is a matter for the respondent whether she wishes to be provided with the document at an earlier date.

25. I direct:

i) The appellant is to bring the original arrest warrant to the resumed hearing for inspection.

ii) The appellant, if so advised, is to file and serve further evidence no later than 21 days after the sending of this decision to the parties.

Notice of Decision

26. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sent to the parties on 10 January 2025 is subject to material error of law and is set aside in its entirety.

27. The hearing of the appeal is transferred from the First-tier Tribunal sitting in Newcastle to the First-tier Tribunal sitting in Manchester.

28. An anonymity order is made.

D O’Callaghan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

15 December 2025