Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002637

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/00203/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 30 January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAVIES

Between

XH
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms H Lynes, instructed by Barnes Harrild and Dyer Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr K Ojo, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 9 January 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the appellant] (and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified) 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 (and/or other person). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant was born on 3 September 2000 in Iraq and is of Kurdish ethnicity. He lived in Sirwan, in the Kurdish Region of Iraq (‘KRI’). His claim for asylum, made on 25 January 2023, was on the basis of a secret romantic and sexual relationship with a girl called Sara, whose family had turned down his request to marry her. When the relationship was discovered, Sara’s brother is alleged to have locked the Appellant in a room for a day; her brothers and cousins then took him away, stabbed him, and left him for dead. He was hospitalised for a month, then fled Iraq in fear of his life with an agent’s assistance. The claims for asylum and humanitarian protection were refused by letter dated 10 October 2023.
2. The Appellant appealed against that decision; his appeal having been heard on 14 March 2025 at Taylor House by First tier Tribunal Judge Revill (“the Judge”). The Respondent was neither present nor represented at that hearing. The appeal was dismissed in a determination promulgated on 1 April 2025. The Judge accepted the truthfulness of the Appellant’s account of events in Iraq, however considered that he could internally relocate within the KRI.
3. Permission to appeal was granted on 17 July 2025 by Upper Tribunal Judge Kamara. An error of law hearing took place on 26 September 2025. It was determined that there was a material error law in that:
(a) Having accepted that the Appellant was at risk of persecution from Sara’s brothers, and also that they were members of the Peshmerga (accepted as being a de facto state security force), see [57], the implicit acknowledgement within the decision is that the Appellant is at risk of state persecution within the KRI;
(b) there was insufficient consideration and/ or inadequate reasoning in relation to the availability of internal relocation within the parameters of the findings outlined above i.e. the accepted credibility of the Appellant’s account and the identity of those from whom he fears persecution.
4. The findings as to the Appellant’s credibility in his account of events prior to his departure at [49] were preserved.
5. The finding of risk of persecution on return to this home area [52] was also preserved.
6. I therefore heard submissions from Ms Lynes and Mr Ojo, to whom I am grateful for their assistance.
Analysis
The issue
7. The appellant has appealed under s82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 against the decision of the respondent to refuse his claim for asylum and humanitarian protection. The appellant bears the burden of establishing his claim to the lower standard.
8. I am required to decide whether there is another location within the IKR that provides a viable internal relocation option for the Appellant.
9. The relevant country guidance is now set out in SMO & KSP (Civil status documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 00110 (IAC) (“SMO & Others II”). That case is relevant to whether there is a viable internal relocation option for the Appellant.
The hearing before me
10. I have been provided with a consolidated bundle of documents. I have had regard to all the evidence, whether or not specifically referred to. I take into account the statements made by the Appellant.
11. The re-making hearing took place on 9 January 2026. The Appellant was present, and was assisted by a Kurdish Sorani interpreter. The Appellant and interpreter confirmed that each was able to understand the other. In the event, the Appellant elected not to give oral evidence, and so he was not cross examined. Ms Lynes indicated that evidence which had recently been filed in support of the appeal (and which was not in the composite bundle) was not in the event being relied upon. The documents relevant to the appeal were agreed to be those in the composite bundle, and the re-making proceeded on the basis of submissions. Mr Ojo identified issues upon which he would have cross examined the Appellant had the Appellant given evidence.
12. In summary, the Appellant’s submission is that the Appellant would be at real risk from Sara’s brothers in his home area, based on the past harm and threats of harm by Sara’s family and there being no reason to believe that the animosity had ended. The Appellant argues that once it is accepted, that the brothers are members of the Peshmerga, it follows, applying the lower standard of proof, that the Appellant could not safely relocate within the KRI. I was referred to the September 2025 Country Policy and Information Note (“CPIN”) at section 6 in particular, in relation to the security forces. Ms Lynes further referred to the low threshold for likely risk, on the basis of MAH (Egypt) v SSHD 2023 EWCA Civ 216 at paragraph 51-52. Ms Lynes submitted that it was not accurate to refer to a standard of proof as the Appellant does not have to prove anything, as the required exercise is an assessment of risk: less than a 50% chance or even a 10% chance may satisfy the relevant test. She submitted that, when applying the low standard of proof applicable in circumstances where the actors of persecution are from the Peshmerga, there is clearly a real risk of persecution even if the Appellant were to relocate to another part of the KRI. She summarised the position in terms that Sara’s brothers are motivated to harm the Appellant, and the animosity has not come to an end so that the Appellant is at real risk and cannot safely internally relocate.
13. The Respondent relied upon the reasons for refusal letter and identified issues upon which questions would have been asked for the Appellant had he tendered himself to give evidence. Mr Ojo argued that his failure to do so should reduce the strength of his claim. It was submitted that, according to the asylum interview (bundle page 532 at questions 127 and 128), nothing has happened to the Appellant’s family, which indicates less of a motivation on the part of Sara’s brothers in relation to wanting to harm him. He has not provided evidence since promulgation of the first-Tier decision in relation to checks or contact in Iraq which might have demonstrated that the motivation to harm is still there.
14. In terms of internal relocation, it was the Respondent’s submission that a finding on risk is needed as at the date of this hearing. The Appellant was submitted to be a fit and healthy individual and still has ties to Iraq at least though his family who are there, and who can assist him on return.
15. That Sara’s brothers were members of the Peshmerga was accepted - however, the question was whether they have the power and influence to find the Appellant wherever he would go in the KRI. The Respondent would have wished to explore in evidence whether it was possible for the Appellant to relocate to Erbil or Sulaymaniyah. The Judge had observed that Sara’s brothers were part of the Peshmerga but was not satisfied that they would have the power and influence to find the Appellant were he to relocate.
16. The Respondent’s position is that the asylum interview at page 514 indicates the presence of relatives in Iraq at question 154 including an uncle in Halabja, and questions would have been asked about contact with those relatives and about Sara’s circumstances which may be relevant to her brothers’ intentions towards the Appellant. The brothers’ ranks were not known and there was no evidence in relation to that.
17. The Appellant’s written submissions make reference to the decision of the Upper Tribunal in MB (Internal relocation – burden of proof) Albania [2019] UKUT 00392 (IAC). This states, at para. 24 that:
The burden of proof remains on the appellant, where the respondent has identified the location to which it is asserted they could relocate, to prove why that location would be unduly harsh, in line with AMM and others (conflict; humanitarian crisis; returnees; FGM) Somalia CG [2011] UKUT 445 (IAC), but within that burden, the evaluation exercise should be holistic. An holistic approach to such an assessment is consistent with the balance-sheet approach endorsed later in SSHD v SC (Jamaica) [2017] EWCA Civ 2112, at paragraphs [40] and [41].
18. The headnote to that case records that:
MM v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland (Common European Asylum System – Directive 2004/83/EC) Case C-277/11 does not impose a burden on the respondent or result in a formal sharing of the burden of proof, but merely confirms a duty of cooperation at the stage of assessment, for example the production of the country information reports.
Decision
19. I have considered all the written evidence with which I have been presented, whether or not it is specifically referred to. I have also had regard to the submissions made by the representatives both in writing and orally before me, as summarised above, and have considered matters even if not specifically referred to.
20. I bear in mind the preserved findings set out above. I start from the proposition that the Appellant has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his potential to be a victim of an honour killing. There are preserved findings that Sara’s brothers are members of the Peshmerga. The rank of her deceased father is also the subject of a preserved finding, albeit of somewhat less relevance in light of his death.
21. The Judge concluded that the Appellant’s account was broadly credible [49] and that he could not return to his home area [52].
22. The sole issue in this appeal is therefore whether there is an area to which the Appellant can internally relocate. The Judge limited consideration of internal relocation to the KRI, see [55]:
I accept that the Appellant cannot be expected to relocate to Baghdad or elsewhere within government-controlled Iraq. Applying SMO and KSP (Civil status documentation, article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC) (‘SMO2’), the reasonableness of doing so for a Kurdish male depends on whether there is a support network of family, extended family, or tribal members. I accept the Appellant would not have such a support network in Baghdad or elsewhere in government-controlled Iraq; he has stated that all his family are in the KRI and he has no contacts elsewhere. I have no reason to disbelieve this.
23. I see no reason to depart from that approach, and accordingly also consider whether the Appellant can relocate within the KRI, taking the same approach to the geographical constraints as the Judge did at [56].
24. The House of Lords gave guidance as to the test to be applied in Januzi v Home Secretary [2006] UKHL 5, [2006] 2 AC 426. Lord Bingham, with whom the other members of the House agreed, said at paragraph 21:
"The decision-maker, taking account of all relevant circumstances pertaining to the claimant and his country of origin, must decide whether it is reasonable to expect the claimant to relocate or whether it would be unduly harsh to expect him to do so."
25. The burden of proof remains on the appellant to prove why internal relocation within the IKR would be unduly harsh; see MB (Internal relocation – burden of proof) Albania [2019] UKUT 00392 (IAC).
26. The IKR comprises, now, of four governorates; Erbil Governorate, Sulaymaniyah Governorate, Halabja Governorate and Duhok Governorate. Until June 2025, Halabja was within the Sulaymaniyah Governorate.
27. The Respondent’s CPIN; Actors of protection, version 1 states:
“Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) structure and governance
7.2.1 The guidance note published by EASO in June 2019 stated: ‘The KRI is governed by the autonomous KRG under the Iraqi Constitution. The KRG is responsible for the governorates of Erbil, Sulaymaniyah, and Dahuk. The KRI is the only constitutionally recognised autonomous region. The Constitution permits the KRG to have their own executive, legislative and judicial powers, aside from those exclusive to the federal government. They are allocated an equitable share of national revenues, and are permitted to establish and organise their own internal security forces, such as police.’”
28. The Appellant’s home area is Halabja, formerly in the Sulaymaniyah Governorate. I accept that it is not possible for him to relocate to that region.
29. The Appellant argues that Sara’s brothers, being members of the Peshmerga, have power and influence throughout the KRI such that there is no viable alternative place of residence within the KRI.
30. That CPIN states that:
2.6 Internal relocation
2.6.1 A person who has a well-founded fear of an ‘honour’ crime may be able to relocate to escape the risk. Decision makers must assess each case on its merits, in particular the power/reach of the agent of persecution, given that some tribes are powerful and influential within Iraq and the IKR.
2.6.2 Decision makers must give careful consideration to the relevance and reasonableness of internal relocation, particularly for a single woman taking full account of the individual circumstances of the particular person. Each case must be considered on its merits.
31. The CPIN; Iraq: Actors of protection, version 1 confirms at [5.3.1]:
Municipal police are responsible for traditional civil and traffic enforcement, environmental policing, immigration enforcement, and facilities protection roles. Municipal police forces are responsible for routine policing, patrols, first response and investigation to minor felonies although they have a range of administrative functions. Emergency police handle major felonies.
According to a research paper on the KRG security forces published in 2009, the municipal police remain politically divided along party lines….
32. According to the Country policy and information note: actors of protection, Iraq, September 2025, updated 5 November 2025:
2.1.5 The main state security actors in the KRI are the Peshmerga (the armed forces), the Asayish (the internal security service) and the police. These actors are not unified across the KRI because of the influence of party politics. The two main parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), each have their own security apparatus. Different units and factions within the security forces, including the police, are usually affiliated with one of the two parties.
33. As far as is material to this appeal, in SMO II, the Upper Tribunal provided the following guidance:
“Kurds
27. For an Iraqi national returnee (P) of Kurdish origin in possession of a valid CSID or Iraqi National Identity Card (INID), the journey from Baghdad to the IKR by land is affordable and practical and can be made without a real risk of P suffering persecution, serious harm, or Article 3 ill treatment nor would any difficulties on the journey make relocation unduly harsh.
28. P is unable to board a domestic flight between Baghdad and the IKR without either a CSID, an INID or a valid passport. If P has one of those documents, the journey from Baghdad to the IKR by air is affordable and practical and can be made without a real risk of P suffering persecution, serious harm, or Article 3 ill treatment nor would any difficulties on the journey make relocation unduly harsh.
…
30. Once at the IKR border (land or air) P would normally be granted entry to the territory. Subject to security screening, and registering presence with the local mukhtar, P would be permitted to enter and reside in the IKR with no further legal impediments or requirements. There are no sponsorship requirements for entry or residence in any of the three IKR Governorates for Kurds.
31. Whether P would be at particular risk of ill-treatment during the security screening process must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Additional factors that may increase risk include: (i) coming from a family with a known association with ISIL, (ii) coming from an area associated with ISIL and (iii) being a single male of fighting age. P is likely to be able to evidence the fact of recent arrival from the UK, which would dispel any suggestion of having arrived directly from ISIL territory.
32. If P has family members living in the IKR cultural norms would require that family to accommodate P. In such circumstances P would, in general, have sufficient assistance from the family so as to lead a ‘relatively normal life’, which would not be unduly harsh. It is nevertheless important for decision-makers to determine the extent of any assistance likely to be provided by P’s family on a case by case basis.
33. For Kurds without the assistance of family in the IKR the accommodation options are limited:
(i) Absent special circumstances it is not reasonably likely that P will be able to gain access to one of the refugee camps in the IKR; these camps are already extremely overcrowded and are closed to newcomers. 64% of IDPs are accommodated in private settings with the vast majority living with family members;
(ii) If P cannot live with a family member, apartments in a modern block in a new neighbourhood are available for rent at a cost of between $300 and $400 per month;
(iii) P could resort to a ‘critical shelter arrangement’, living in an unfinished or abandoned structure, makeshift shelter, tent, mosque, church or squatting in a government building. It would be unduly harsh to require P to relocate to the IKR if P will live in a critical housing shelter without access to basic necessities such as food, clean water and clothing;
(iv) In considering whether P would be able to access basic necessities, account must be taken of the fact that failed asylum seekers are entitled to apply for a grant under the Voluntary Returns Scheme, which could give P access to £1500. Consideration should also be given to whether P can obtain financial support from other sources such as (a) employment, (b) remittances from relatives abroad, (c) the availability of ad hoc charity or by being able to access PDS rations.
34. Whether P is able to secure employment must be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking the following matters into account:
(i) Gender. Lone women are very unlikely to be able to secure legitimate employment;
(ii) The unemployment rate for Iraqi IDPs living in the IKR is 70%;
(iii) P cannot work without a CSID or INID;
(iv) Patronage and nepotism continue to be important factors in securing employment. A returnee with family connections to the region will have a significant advantage in that he would ordinarily be able to call upon those contacts to make introductions to prospective employers and to vouch for him;
(v) Skills, education and experience. Unskilled workers are at the greatest disadvantage, with the decline in the construction industry reducing the number of labouring jobs available;
(vi) If P is from an area with a marked association with ISIL, that may deter prospective employers.
34. The Appellant’s claim in interview (question 154) was that he had family living in Halabja and an aunt who lived outside of Iraq: he did not know in which country she resided. He did not present evidence of any current contact with any family member, and so it is appropriate to infer that his family would be unaware of his return to the KRI.
35. The Appellant had clarified before the first-tier Tribunal that he had been issued an Iraqi National Identity Document (‘INID’) and would therefore be able to redocument himself within a reasonable time [11].
36. The Appellant’s position is that because Sara’s father was a lieutenant and her brothers were Peshmerga soldiers, ‘they are working for the government so they can find me easy there’ (questions 158-159). His argument is that Sara’s family would find him anywhere in the KRI.
37. I deal first with Sara’s father, who on the Appellant’s account has died. His former position or influence would therefore no longer be relevant. The Appellant’s first witness statement says that Sara’s brother ‘is also influential’, but as found by the Judge at [57] there is no information beyond him being in the Peshmerga. In line with the general approach to the Judge’s findings of fact, and taking into account that no new evidence has been adduced, I conclude that there is nothing to indicate that Sara’s brothers are more influential than rank and file Peshmerga members. The question, then, is whether the reach of an ordinary Peshmerga member is such that they would be able to locate someone in a different governorate within the KRI?
38. The Appellant argues that the Peshmerga is the de facto state and as such would have reach throughout the KRI. He relies in this regard in his grounds of appeal dated 14 April 2025 upon the Respondent’s CPIN on Iraq: Actors of Protection, November 2020, at 5.2:
5.2 Peshmerga
5.2.1 The November 2018 EASO report citing various sources stated: ‘In the Kurdistan region, the Peshmerga and “militias of the KDP and PUK” are responsible for maintaining order in KRI…The KRG Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs oversees the Peshmerga. The KDP’s Zerevani and the PUK’s Emergency Force are both de facto part of the Peshmerga although they report to the Ministry of Interior, thereby having both a civilian policing and military function. They are described as a “military police force” with functions that switch between police work and soldiering. Both of these groups were involved in frontline anti-ISIL operations largely being active in their respective traditional zones of political influence. ‘The Peshmerga is part of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), but falls under the jurisdiction of KRG but also has to follow certain Iraqi laws. …” (Appellant’s emphases).
39. The CPIN dated November 2025 states at 2.1.5 that state security actors are not unified because of the influence of party politics. According to the CPIN, “the two main parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), each have their own security apparatus. Different units and factions within the security forces, including the police, are usually affiliated with one of the two parties”. This does not indicate a seamless state apparatus by which an ordinary Peshmerga member would be able to locate someone in a different area of the KRI.
40. I have not been taken to evidence that would support the view that the Appellant would come to the attention of individual Peshmerga members within the KRI.
41. Having analysed the materials, and accepting that there is a relationship between the Peshmerga and the state, albeit that the interest of Sara’s brothers in the Appellant is a personal one, I do not consider there to be a reasonable likelihood that the Appellant would come to the attention of the brothers following relocation within the KRI. Looked at in the round, the low-level status of the brothers, the fragmented security systems, and the absence of evidence supporting the view that there would be state checks on the Appellant, all lead me to conclude that even the lower reasonable likelihood threshold is not met. I conclude that the Appellant would not be of any interest to the authorities in a governorate other than his home area.
42. On the basis of his answer summarised above at question 154 of the asylum interview and the general finding as to his credibility, I accept that the Appellant will not have any family support in a governorate other than his home area. I accept that he is not reasonably likely to be able to gain access to one of the refugee camps in the IKR, noting the CPIN evidence that these are already extremely overcrowded and are closed to newcomers.
43. The Appellant may be entitled to apply for a grant under the Voluntary Returns Scheme, that would provide him with some assistance in the short term in obtaining accommodation and meeting his essential living needs. I regard it as relevant that he is young, has no health issues, had seven years of education and has experience in farming, and therefore has skills and experience to support his reintegration into an area within the KRI other than his home area.
44. I am required to conduct a holistic assessment. Looking at matters in the round, and taking into account the Appellant’s personal circumstances as well as the relevant country guidance set out in SMO & Others II, I conclude that relocating to an area other than Halabja (now its own governorate) or Sulaymaniyah (the governorate in which Halabja was formerly situated) (i.e. to the Erbil or Duhok governorates) may entail some element of difficulty or adversity for the Appellant in terms of employment and housing in particular.
45. However, and notwithstanding his limited work experience, I do not accept that he would experience destitution. I take into account, as noted above, that he has knowledge of how society operates in the KRI. He has education and gained work experience as a farmer. Drawing those threads together, I am satisfied that there will be opportunities available for him to obtain accommodation and employment even without the benefit of family support or patronage.
46. The appellant has not discharged the burden on him to demonstrate, even to the lower standard, that it would be unduly harsh or unreasonable for him to relocate to one of the two other governorates of the KRI in which, as set out above, he would not be at risk of harm and would be able to re-establish himself.
47. It follows that I dismiss his appeal on asylum and humanitarian protection grounds.
Notice of Decision
The appeal is dismissed on asylum grounds.
The appeal is dismissed on humanitarian protection grounds.

Siân Davies

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

28 January 2026