Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-003343
First-tier Tribunal No: PA 672862023
LP/11099/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

22nd June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE

Between

AA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms Patel
For the Respondent: Mr Tan, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 1 June 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

Background
1. The appellant is a male citizen of Iraq. He appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision of the Secretary of State dated 12 December 2023 refusing his claim for international protection. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal and appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
2. By a decision promulgated on 21 April 2026, Upper Tribunal Judge Grey set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and directed a resumed hearing in the Upper Tribunal. The Secretary of State agreed that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law for the reasons set out in Ground 2 of the grounds of appeal. That ground was summarised by the First-tier Tribunal judge who granted permission as follows: ‘The Judge did not find whether or not he genuinely held these beliefs and therefore whether or not he would wish to pursue his political beliefs on return. Having not made this finding he did not also address whether or not he would have continued to be politically active in opposition to the regime on return and therefore this discloses an arguable material error of law.’
3. At [6] of her decision, Upper Tribunal Judge Grey preserved the findings of the First-tier Tribunal in respect of the appellant’s relationship with a woman (P) and as to the appellant’s credibility generally at [10-35]; the First-tier Tribunal judge had concluded that: ‘I do not accept that [the appellant’s] claims are reasonably likely to be true.’ Upper Tribunal Judge Grey also preserved the finding that the appellant has ‘access to documentation to travel safely to Iraq [i.e. a valid CSID document]’.
The resumed hearing : 1 June 2026
4. The appellant gave evidence at the resumed hearing with the assistance of an interpreter. Having heard the oral submissions of Ms Pate, for the appellant, and Mr Tan for the Secretary of State, I reserved my decision.
5. The burden of proof is on the appellant. The appellant must show that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would face a real risk of persecution or ill treatment on return to his home area of Iraq.
Analysis
6. I do not find that the appellant is a witness of truth. I find that he does not genuinely hold any political views which would expose him to real risk on return to Iraq. I find as a fact that the appellant would remove any Facebook or other online content before returning to Iraq. I find that the appellant would be able to access his valid CSID and that he would be assisted by his family in Iraq so that he could return to his home area safely and live there without risk of being harmed.
7. I have reached those findings for the following reasons.
8. First, the appellant was wholly unable to explain very significant discrepancies in his evidence even when given every chance to do so in cross examination. He was asked why he had stated in his asylum interview (Q98) on 2 December 2023 that he was not ‘involved in politics in any way’ when he later claimed to have attended two demonstrations (one in July 2023) and posted photographs on Facebook. The appellant replied that he had ‘not understood the question.’ The appellant stated that he had waited until 2023 to become actively involved in politics by attending demonstrations because he had been afraid ‘in a new country’. He could not explain why a Facebook entry purportedly showing the appellant at a demonstration had a text referring to a demonstration in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne on 20 November 2019 beyond claiming that there ‘must have been a typing error’. He gave the same response when asked to explain why a Facebook entry of 22 January 2023 referred to a demonstration, again in Newcastle, on a future date – 5 April 2023. I find that the appellant is unaware of the contents of the Facebook feed which he claims evidences his political activities in the United Kingdom. I find that, had he possessed any genuine political views, he would have been able to explain the manifest discrepancies on the feed. I find it likely that the appellant has been provided with the Facebook feed by third parties assisting him to bring a false asylum claim.
9. At [31] of the bundle of documents, there is a letter purportedly written by 17 Shubat Organisation for Human Rights with which the appellant claims to be involved. Inter alia, the letter sets out particulars of demonstrations allegedly attended by the appellant. Nowhere in the letter does it state that all the information about the appellant’s involvement with the organisation was provided by the appellant himself, which he confirmed he had sent by email. When asked by Mr Tan about his activities with the organisation, the appellant replied that attending demonstrations was ‘all I do’. He was then asked why the letter stated that he also attended meetings and gave speeches. The appellant said that he ‘did not understand’ the questions. I find that the probative value of the 17 Shubat letter is minimal given that the contents consists only of material which the appellant provided. More significantly, the appellant’s credibility is further very seriously undermined by the fact that he could not recall, until prompted, that he attended meetings and gave speeches for the organisation in addition to attending demonstrations.
10. I reject Ms Patel’s submission that the First-tier Tribunal judge’s finding that the appellant had not given truthful evidence of events in Iraq should not be carried over into my assessment of evidence of his sur place activities. I can see no reason to compartmentalise the appellant’s evidence in that way. The fact that the appellant had been found to have given false evidence to another Tribunal constitutes the background against which I must reach my findings.
11. The Facebook evidence adduced by the appellant made no sense whatever in the context of the chronology of political activities given by the appellant. I find that the appellant has feigned political opinions solely with the intention of bolstering his false asylum claim. I find (i) that the appellant would do anything he can to remove his online presence before returning to Iraq because he holds no genuine political views hostile to the Kurdish authorities in Iraq; (ii) that the claims the appellant makes in his statement of 2 April 2026 that agents of the Kurdish authorities monitor his activities in the United Kingdom are wholly untrue and (iii) that the Kurdish authorities present in the United Kingdom and in Iraq are wholly unaware of the appellant, who has no political profile whatsoever here in the United Kingdom or abroad.
12. I find that the appellant would not be at risk on return to Iraq on account of any political activity or sur place activities. I find that the appellant may have attended demonstrations in the United Kingdom but those attendances will not expose him to any risk on return. I find that the appellant, in possession of a valid identity card and with the assistance of his family in Iraq, will have no problems returning to and living in his home area of that country. Accordingly, I remake the decision dismissing his appeal.

Notice of Decision
I have remade the decision. the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State dated 12 December 2023 is dismissed.

C. N. Lane

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Dated: 9 June 2026