Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-003007
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/53842/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 9th March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA

Between

HA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Ahmed, counsel instructed by Faraj Law Limited
For the Respondent: Ms A Everett, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 3 March 2026

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
Introduction
1. The Secretary of State has been granted permission to appeal the decision of the First-tier Tribunal allowing the appeal following a hearing which took place on 11 June 2025.
2. However, for ease of reference hereafter the parties will be referred to as they were before the First-tier Tribunal.
Anonymity
3. I have continued the anonymity order made by the First-Tier Tribunal. I have considered the public interest in open justice but conclude that it is outweighed by the importance of facilitating the discharge of the United Kingdom’s obligations to those claiming international protection because of the need for confidentiality.
Factual Background
4. The appellant is a national of Iraq now aged thirty-two. He arrived in the United Kingdom unlawfully during August 2024 and claimed asylum. That claim was based the appellant’s fear for his life owing to having consummated a relationship with his girlfriend in Iraq before marriage. In addition, the appellant claimed to have no identity documentation from Iraq, that he had lost contact with his family and thus would be at risk on travelling from an airport in Iraq to his home area.
5. The Secretary of State refused the appellant’s asylum claim in a decision letter dated 25 January 2024, in which the credibility of his claim to be at risk was roundly rejected.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal
6. At the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal, the credibility of the appellant’s claim was the principal matter in dispute [10]. The judge found in the appellant’s favour [16-21], concluding that the appellant was at risk from a relatively high-ranking officer. The respondent’s representative accepted that if the account was found to be credible the issues of adequacy of protection and internal relocation had no application to the appellant’s case. The judge further found that there were very significant obstacles to the appellant’s reintegration in Iraq owing to his lack of documentation and having no way of obtaining such. The appeal was therefore allowed on asylum and human rights (Articles 3 and 8) grounds.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
7. The two grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows:
(i) the judge materially erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for accepting the credibility of the appellant’s account.
(ii) the judge failed to correctly resolve the issue of whether the appellant’s claim falls within the Refugee Convention as a member of a Particular Social Group (PSG). It was argued submitted that the judge failed to apply the conjunctive approach as required by Sub-sections 33(2)-(4) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
8. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis sought.
9. The appellant filed no Rule 24 response.
The error of law hearing
10. The matter comes before the Upper Tribunal to determine whether the decision contains an error of law and, if it is so concluded, to either re-make the decision or remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to do so. A bundle was submitted by the Secretary of State containing, inter alia, the core documents in the appeal, including the appellant’s and respondent’s bundles before the First-tier Tribunal.
11. The hearing was attended by representatives for both parties as above. Both representatives made submissions and the conclusions below reflect those arguments and submissions where necessary.
Discussion
12. Ground one contains criticism of the judge for providing inadequate reasons for concluding that the appellant was a witness of truth. At [19] the judge indicates that he was persuaded by the submissions made on the appellant’s behalf as to credibility and the plausibility of the claim and concluded that his evidence had ‘remained broadly consistent.’
13. The decision letter included the following paragraph which set out the respondent’s concerns as to the credibility/implausibility of the core of the appellant’s claim.
You have stated you are unable to return to Iraq due to the relationship you had with Sawin (AIR 37), and you are in fear of her family who is powerful and influential (AIR 36), yet you have failed to demonstrate how Sawin’s family are powerful and influential. It is considered inconsistent you have stated you received threats from Sawin’s brother (AIR 86), yet you are in fear of her family (AIR 39). You have stated you have not met Sawin’s father and have had no threats from him either (AIR 98) so why would you state you are in fear of Sawin’s father when it was her brother who supposedly made these threats to you. You have given regular inconsistencies throughout your asylum interview regarding the dates you and Sawin had first met. You stated you met Sawin at the end of 2020 (AIR 45) then when asked again you stated it was February 2021 (AIR 49). When questioned at interview regarding these discrepancies you were unable to provide a reasonable explanation. The explanation you gave that you mis understood the question has not been accepted. You stated when asked that you did visit Sawin’s home to propose to her (AIR 76), you then later state it was your uncle who went to Sawin’s home to propose on your behalf, and you did not go (AIR 79). It is reasonable of me to suggest that if you were planning on making a marriage proposal to the woman you loved you would have made this proposal yourself and not sent a family member to propose on your behalf. You have stated you only received one threat from Sawin’s brother before you escaped (AIR 86). You have failed to evidence you are still of interest to Sawin’s family since escaping after the first threat was made and have not had any contact with the family since leaving. You have failed to provide a reasonable answer when asked about your abilities to re locate (AIR 110). You have also failed to provide a reasonable answer when asked how Sawin’s family would have the means and abilities to find you should you choose to re locate (AIR 111, 1122)
14. In the respondent’s review dated 28 March 2025, the grounds for refusal were maintained, notwithstanding the appellant’s statement in reply and skeleton argument. The respondent’s view was that the issues raised in the decision letter were not adequately dealt with, the statement in reply was not sufficient to counteract these issues and that the appellant’s account would require further testing at an appeal. Indeed, at [16], the judge notes that the appellant was subject to ‘robust cross examination.’
15. The respondent’s review notes that further inconsistencies had arisen from the appellant’s skeleton argument which introduced a claim that a different partner was involved and that this lady was pregnant.
16. The difficulty with the judge’s findings is that there is no reference to any of the concerns raised by the respondent in either the decision letter or review. While the judge clearly prefers the appellant’s account he does not set out what that is or give adequate reasons why it is preferred. Furthermore, the judge does not clarify or grapple with the new matters raised in the appellant’s skeleton argument.
17. The failure to give adequate reasons in this case amounts to a material error of law. The judge’s findings are unsafe and must be set aside. The credibility of the appellant’s account relates to all issues in the appeal, including Article 8, Article 3 and documentation. It is therefore inappropriate to preserve any findings.
18. The second ground concerns the judge’s conclusion that the appellant was a member of a particular social group as a male victim of honour crime. While the judge allowed the appeal on refugee grounds, he made no findings in relation to the disputed issue of Convention Reason. Owing to that omission, there was no assessment by the judge of whether the appellant has both an innate characteristic and is viewed differently by surrounding society, applying JCK (s.32 NABA 2022) (Botswana) [2024] UKUT 00100 (IAC). It follows, that the judge materially erred in this respect.
19. I canvassed the views of the parties as to the venue of any remaking and both were of the view that the matter ought to be remitted if there were no preserved findings of fact. Applying AEB [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC), I carefully considered whether to retain the matter for remaking in the Upper Tribunal, in line with the general principle set out in statement 7 of the Senior President’s Practice Statements. I took into consideration the history of this case, the nature and extent of the findings to be made as well as the fact that the nature of the errors of law in this case meant that the respondent was deprived of an adequate consideration of this protection appeal. I further consider that it would be unfair for either party to be unable to avail themselves of the two-tier decision-making process and therefore remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
The appeal is remitted, de novo, to the First-tier Tribunal to be reheard by a different judge.

T Kamara

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

3 March 2026