Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002488
UI-2025-002489

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/51977/2024
PA/63788/2024
LP/13018/2024
LP/12561/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

10th November 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN

Between

H K A
M K A
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellants
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Representation:

Respondent
For the Appellant: Mr H. Sadiq, instructed by Adam Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mrs A. Nolan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 16 September 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellants are granted anonymity because their cases involve protection claims. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellants, likely to lead members of the public to identify them. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellants are brothers who appealed the respondent’s decisions dated 11 April 2025 to refuse their protection and human rights claims.
2. First-tier Tribunal Judge I. Howard dismissed their appeals in a decision sent on 11 April 2025. The judge found that the appellants failed to produce sufficient evidence to show that their father was likely to have been arrested in 2021, who they said was a prominent member of the Peshmerga / PUK. The background evidence mentioned other prominent leaders who had been killed but the appellants were unable to point to any information relating to their father. The absence of evidence either indicated that he was not arrested as claimed or does not have a sufficiently high profile that was likely to place the appellants at risk solely because of their familial connections [30]. The judge found that it was not credible that the appellants did not have any contact with family members in the Kurdish Region of Iraq (KRI) [32]-[33].
3. The judge considered the appellants’ claim that they had received threats on Facebook from members of another faction of the PUK [34]. In considering the credibility of this aspect of their account the judge found that there did not appear to be any ideological motive for the appellants to start attending rallies in the UK when they had no previous political profile beyond ‘that of being in their father’s orbit.’ He considered that the political activities that they conducted in the UK were ‘born of no greater desire than to bolster an asylum claim.’ This was reflected in the Facebook material which was ‘highly selective’ [35] and of ‘uncertain provenance’ [37]. Even if the appellants had attended rallies in an opportunistic way, there was no evidence to show that members of the PUK were likely to gather intelligence on people who attended rallies in the UK [38]. Nor was there any evidence to show that the appellants would be at real risk of serious harm if they returned to the KRI either as a result of their association with their father due to the rallies they attended in the UK [40].
4. The judge went on to find that the appellants could be redocumented before returning to the KRI. They said that the German authorities took their passports. The British authorities might be able to take steps to obtain them [43]. On the face of their evidence, they had identity cards that were still at the family home, which they could obtain and/or could be reissued if need be [44].
5. The appellants applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on two grounds:
(i) The First-tier Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons to explain why their claim not to be in contact with family members in Iraq was not credible.
(ii) The First-tier Tribunal made a mistake of fact at [35] in stating that the appellants did not have any prior history of attending demonstrations before entering the UK. The second point was not particularised beyond this bare statement.
6. A First-tier Tribunal judge granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in relation to the second ground but refused permission in relation to the first ground.
7. I have considered the First-tier Tribunal decision, the documentation that was before the First-tier Tribunal, the grounds of appeal, and the submissions made at the hearing, before coming to a decision in this appeal. It is not necessary to summarise the oral submissions because they are a matter of record, but I will refer to any relevant arguments in the decision.
8. I bear in mind that judicial caution and restraint is required when considering whether to set aside a decision of a specialist tribunal. In particular, judges of a specialist tribunal are best placed to make factual findings: see HA (Iraq) v SSHD [2022] UKSC 22. Appellate courts should not rush to find misdirections simply because they might have reached a different conclusion on the facts or expressed themselves differently: see AH (Sudan) v SSHD [2007] UKHL 49 and KM v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 693. Where a relevant point is not expressly mentioned by the tribunal, the court should be slow to infer that it has not been taken into account: see MA (Somalia) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 49. When it comes to the reasons given by the tribunal, the court should exercise judicial restraint and should not assume that the tribunal misdirected itself just because not every step in its reasoning is fully set out: see R (Jones) v FTT (SEC) [2013] UKSC 19.
Decision and reasons
9. The second ground, as originally pleaded, did nothing more than point to the fact that there was a reference to attendance at demonstrations in Iraq. However, the ground failed to particularise how or why this would have made any material difference to the outcome of the appeal.
10. Mr Sadiq pointed to aspects of the asylum interview records where the one of the appellants had mentioned attending a demonstration in 2017 in the KRI, seemingly in opposition to the KDP.
11. I have considered the interview record of HKA. At questions 30-31 HKA said that he feared the KDP ‘because in 2017 we did protest against them and we set fire to their bases and so from that time I fear the KDP.’ There is nothing in his witness statement that mentions any fear of return resulting from previous political activities in the KRI. Nor did he provide any meaningful detail about that incident during the course of the interview. At question 51 HKA was asked when his problems started in the KRI. He said that it was at the time when there was an ‘argument between Pavel Talibani and Lahoor Talibani’ in July 2021 (I take this to be references to Bafel Talabani and Lahur Talibani, co-leaders of the PUK). At question 57 HKA made clear that he was not a member of the PUK, but he supported Lahur Talibani. At question 62 HKA said that his father was sacked in August 2021.
12. HKA went on to mention a demonstration that took place in 2017 in answer to question 65. Again, little or no detail was given about this incident beyond stating: ‘I have been arrested 2 time as I partook in a demonstration in 2017 2 times but I have been release because of my fathers power, they released me.’ At question 66 he clarified that he was arrested by the police. The last reference to demonstrations against the KDP appears to be at question 84, when HKA was asked why he feared the KDP. His answer is recorded as follows:
‘Yes, three reasons, first partaking in demonstrations second as I mentioned my dad is accused of participating in civil war before and they know that we are his son and also if you want to go [from] the PUK zone or area to the PDK area you need support from security forces, KDP security forces which is very difficult.’
13. I have also considered the interview record of MKA. He explained that his father supported Lahur Talibani when two factions of the PUK split. He expressed a fear of the other faction of the PUK because of this. At question 81 he was asked whether he had attended any demonstrations in the UK or in Iraq. MKA said that he had taken part in demonstrations in the UK but did not mention having attended any demonstrations in Iraq. Like his brother, there is no mention of having attended any demonstrations in the KRI in his witness statement.
14. The judge found that there was no evidence to show that the appellants would be at risk if returned either as a result of their claim that their father was arrested in 2021 or as a result of their own political profiles. This finding was open to the judge to make given that the appellants’ bundle indicates that no background evidence was produced about the situation in the KRI. The bundle only include a skeleton argument, two witness statements and selective copies of what were said to be Facebook posts in the index of the bundle and other untranslated and unexplained messages that seemed to be dated from 2015-2018. It was suggested that other messages showed the appellants at demonstrations in the UK.
15. For the reasons outlined above, the second ground manifestly fails to show any error of law in the First-tier Tribunal decision. Both the written pleading and the oral submissions fail to identify how the bare reference to a demonstration in 2017 could have founded a current claim for asylum. Only one of the appellants appears to have mentioned any previous political activity in Iraq. Even then HKA provided so little detail about the incidents in 2017 that it could not have possibly founded any claim to fear the KDP at the date of the hearing.
16. In any event, the appellants failed to produce any background evidence to show that anyone who had been involved in the split between factions of the PUK in 2021 would be at risk, let alone solely through familial connections as the appellants claimed.
17. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the First-tier Tribunal decision did not involve the making of an error of law. The decision shall stand.
Notice of Decision
The First-tier Tribunal decision did not involve the making of an error of law
The decision shall stand

M. Canavan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

30 October 2025