Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001995

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/00468/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 8th of July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON

Between

RRK
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr C Holmes, instructed by Barnes Harrild and Dyer Solicitors.
For the Respondent: Mr Diwnycz, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 2 July 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 appeals with permission a decision of a judge of the First-tier Tribunal (‘the Judge’), promulgated on 15 February 2025, in which the Judge dismissed his appeal against the refusal of his application for international protection and/or leave to remain in United Kingdom on any other basis.
2. The Appellant is said to be a citizen of Iraq and also of the Dominican Republic, born in 1996. He applied for asylum on 27 October 2021. His application was refused on 20 March 2023.
3. Having considered the documentary and oral evidence the Judge writes at [52] that as a results of aspects of the claim which were not found plausible and the Applicant’s delay in claiming asylum and conduct before doing so which damage his credibility, the Judge could not believe what the Appellant said about events in Iraq and did not find him to be a reliable witness of fact. The Judge found that the appeal should be dismissed.
4. The Appellant sought permission to appeal on four grounds in relation to which the grant of permission refers to permission being granted on Grounds 1 – 3 and refused on Ground 4 but such a restriction is not reflected in the section of the grant in which confirmation of the decision is included.
5. The appeal is opposed by the Secrteay of State.
Discussion and analysis
6. Ground 1 asserts that the Judge materially erred in law for although the Judge states there are aspects of the Appellant’s evidence that are not plausible no reasons are given for this and there is a clear contradiction between the Judge’s finding at [44] that the claim was plausible.
7. Paragraph [44] is to be found within the section of the decision where the Judge was considering issues of credibility. In that paragraph the Judge writes:
44. The respondent says that it is not credible that, knowing the influence of S’s family and the dangers involved, S would invite the appellant round to her house to sleep with her on the first occasion that they had met. I do not accept that. It is plausible.
8. The Judge is referring to one aspect of the refusal letter that the Secretary of State claimed was not plausible which the Judge found in the Appellant’s favour i.e. that a young couple may sleep together on their first date, per se. Whether it was plausible in the context of Iraqi society within a strict family environment and in light of the dangers highlighted in the evidence is another matter.
9. At [52] the Judge writes:
52. There are aspects of his claim which are not plausible. His delay in claiming asylum and his conduct before doing so damages his credibility. Taking all these matters into account, I do not believe what the appellant says about events in Iraq. I do not find him to be a reliable witness as to fact.
10. That falls within the section of the determination in which the Judge is setting out conclusions in relation to the alleged events in Iraq. That required a consideration of all the evidence and all aspects of the Appellant’s claim and consideration of what had been proved or not. It is also relevant to read the sections of the determination that preceded this paragraph when trying to understand how the Judge arrived at that conclusion.
11. I find this aspect of the claim made out. The simple test when assessing a reasons challenge is whether an informed reader of the decision is able to understand not only the findings made by a judge but also the reasons for the same. Even having read the determination as a whole, whilst it is clear the Judge found the Appellant’s claim is not to be plausible, there is no clear indication of why that finding was made. There are insufficient reasons to enable the informed reader to understand why this is so.
12. The significance of that is that the Appellant, who lost the appeal, is unable to understand why the Judge found against him.
13. The Appellant also asserts in this ground that the Judge failed to determine matters in dispute and gave no reasons for his conclusions, claiming the Judge did not actually make any findings. The absence of findings is said to be relevant as the Appellant claimed when he left Iraq he used his Dominican Republic passport which was why he may have been able to depart the airport safely, rather than using his Iraqi passport which appears to be the basis of the Judge finding against the Appellant on this point. The evidence shows that was the Appellants claim before the Judge.
14. The Appellant also asserts that other than the passport issue and the section 8 of the 2004 Act point raised by the Judge, the Judge gives no other reasons for coming to the conclusion set out in the determination.
15. So far as section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 is concerned, the Appellant asserts the sole reason the Judge found against him on the credibility point was by reference to section 8. The Grounds assert it cannot be identified from the determination what the Judge was referring to when he mentions “conduct before doing so [claiming asylum]”. It is said that if this refers to the destruction of the passport that is a matter provided for in section 8 (c) of the 2002 Act and was clearly not conduct designed to mislead as the Appellant’s identity had been accepted. The Grounds also assert the Judge failed to address the Appellant’s evidence that he destroyed his passport due to fear of being removed to Iraq.
16. It is settled law that section 8 is not determinative and is only one of the factors a decision-maker is entitled to take into account. The Grounds submit the recognised approach was not one the Judge followed, sufficient to amount to an error of law. I agree. A reading the determination shows that undue weight was given to the section 8 factor, although that is also a matter materially impacted upon by the failure to provide adequate reasons as referred to in Ground 1.
17. Ground 2 relates to the Appellant’s sur place activities. It is asserted that the errors identified in Ground 1 undermine the findings in relation to this aspect, and that the assessment in respect of the claimed events in Iraq is flawed, as the lack of reasoning it is said to be relevant to the question of whether the Appellant has a genuine political opinion which will create a real risk for him if returned to Iraq, and is relevant to consideration of the HJ (Iran) principal. I agree.
18. Ground 3 asserts as the assessment of credibility is unsafe the findings in relation to reasons for rejecting the Appellant’s claim that he is undocumented is also unsafe. I agree.
19. Ground 4 of the determination is said to contains errors of fact which is said to be relevant to the question of whether the Judge considered the evidence with the required degree of anxious scrutiny, by specific reference to introductory section in which the Judge recalls the Appellant as saying he came to the United Kingdom using his Dominican passport on 3 July 2025, meaning he did not require a visa to enter the UK as a Dominican national, but that he was refused entry at the airport and returned to Iraq on 5 July 2025 which is said to be factually untrue.
Discussion and analysis
20. Ground 1 is the material basis of the challenge made by the Appellant to the determination but I find on all grounds that the Judge has been shown to have materially erred in law for the reasons set out in the application for permission to appeal, grant of permission to appeal, and the above. The Judge reasons are either non-existent or insufficient.
21. The extent of the errors means there can be no preserved findings and that extensive fact-finding will be required on the next occasion.
22. On that basis, having considered the Senior Presidents Practice Direction and the case law of the Upper Tribunal relating to remittal’s of appeals, and accepting the default position is that and appeal should remain within the Upper Tribunal, I find this is nevertheless a case in which it is appropriate to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Newcastle upon Tyne to be heard by a different judge de novo.
Notice of Decision
23. The First-tier Tribunal has been shown to have materially erred in law. That decision is set aside with no preserved findings
24. The appeal shall be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Newcastle to be heard de novo by a different judge.

C J Hanson

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

2 July 2025