Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003351

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/67359/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 21st of January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE NEILSON

Between

T.J.H
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Winter, Counsel, instructed by Jones Whyte Law, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard in Edinburgh on 3 December 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the respondent is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the respondent, likely to lead members of the public to identify the respondent. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction & Background
1. The appellant is a citizen of Iraq. The respondent is the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The appellant appeals with permission granted on 23 July 2025 against the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (“the FtT”) given on 30 April 2025 (“the FtT Decision”) to dismiss the appellant’s appeal against the refusal of his protection claim.
2. The basis of the appellants claim is that he was in business with an individual, OA. That OA threatened the appellant with blackmail if he refused to participate in drug smuggling. The appellant had been involved in an extra-marital relationship. OA had obtained a video of the appellant and this individual engaged in sexual activity. OA disclosed this to the husband of the person the appellant was having an affair with. The appellant and his family fled Iraq as he was at risk of an honour killing. In addition, there is an arrest warrant in Iraq against the appellant on false charges of drug trading.
3. The respondent accepted that the appellant was an Iraqi national but rejected the appellant’s protection claim on the basis that his account of what occurred in Iraq was no accepted as credible.
4. The appellant appealed the refusal of his protection claim to the FtT. Before the FtT both the appellant and his wife gave evidence. The FtT rejected the appeal on the grounds that the appellant’s account of what occurred in Iraq was not credible. Before the FtT the appellant admitted that he held a Dominican passport. There was no evidence that the appellant would be at risk in Dominica. The FtT found that the appellant was a dual national who could be safely returned to Dominica or Iraq.
5. The appeal came before the Upper Tribunal at an error of law hearing on 3 December 2025. At the hearing I heard submissions from the parties and reserved my decision. For the reasons set out below, I find that there was no material error of law sufficient to allow the appeal and I dismiss the appeal.
6. The FtT made an anonymity order in this appeal, and I have considered whether it is appropriate for that order to continue pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (as amended). Having taken into account Guidance Note 2022 No.2: Anonymity Orders and Hearings in Private, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make such an order because the respondent has made an application for international protection and we consider that the UK’s obligations towards applicants for international protection and the need to protect the confidentiality of the asylum process outweigh the public interest in open justice at this stage in the proceedings.

Grounds of Appeal, Discussion and Conclusions
7. There was one ground of appeal put forward by the appellant in this case – a second ground of appeal having been refused at an earlier stage. The ground of appeal was that the FtT erred in law by failing to take account of the wife’s evidence or if that was taken into account the informed reader is left in real and substantial doubt as to how that has been assessed and if rejected why that is so.
8. We heard submissions from both Mr Winter for the appellants and Mr Mullen for the respondent.
9. At the start of the hearing I raised with Mr Winter the issue of the admission by the appellant before the FtT that he had a Dominican passport (see paragraph 17 of the FtT Decision and paragraphs 74 and 75). Mr Winter accepted that that did give the appellant a difficulty in succeeding with this appeal but his instructions were to proceed.
10. The ground of appeal put forward by the appellant was that there was a failure by the FtT to take into account the evidence of the appellant’s wife. It was clear that she had given evidence. The FtT refer at paragraph 14 to hearing from both the appellant and his wife. In addition, there was a statement from the appellant’s wife in the appellant’s bundle that was before the FtT. Mr Winter submitted that it did amount to an error of law for the FtT to fail to expressly address the evidence that was before them from the wife. In making that submission Mr Winter referred to a number of authorities. In particular two decisions from the Inner House of the Court of Session. In AR [2017] CSIH 52 and in particular Lord Malcolm at [36] where he was critical of the failure by the First tier Tribunal judge in that case to expressly deal with the evidence of a witness. In Alshammari v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] CSIH 26 Lady Paton at [51] refers to there being an argument of some substance that there was an error of law where the FtT reached a view on credibility without having had proper regard to the evidence of a supporting witness or by expressly rejecting that evidence and stating why.
11. Whether there is an error of law in failing to deal in express terms with the evidence from a witness will turn upon the particular facts in each case. The evidence led would need to have some relevance to the issues in dispute. Mr Mullen submitted that it was clear that the FtT had considered all the evidence – they state that at paragraph 41; that there were a number of material grounds upon which the credibility of the appellant was found wanting and that the wife’s evidence was hearsay in any event. Against that background Mr Mullen submitted there was no error of law.
12. It is clear from the decision of the FtT that they do not expressly address the evidence provided by the appellant’s wife. Mr Winter referred me to paragraph 6 of the appellant’ wife’s statement where she states that she was contacted by her sister who told her what her husband had done. That may be a reference to the extra marital affair. She also references the arrest warrant. The FtT did find that the appellant’s account of his affair lacked credibility and there was an issue relating to the timing of when any relationship occurred. The arrest warrant was a document that the FtT decided to attach no weight to. Whilst I accept that the evidence from the wife was hearsay on both these points it was nevertheless potentially relevant evidence. The failure of the FtT to address these points does in my view give rise to an error of law. It may be that the evidence from the wife made no difference – but it is not inevitable that it would make no difference. I do consider that it was incumbent upon the FtT to address expressly in its written decision the evidence from the wife and the failure to do so is an error of law.
13. Whilst I accept that there has been an error of law by the FtT failing to deal expressly with the evidence of the wife I do not consider that that error is material to the outcome of the appeal. There were essentially two grounds upon which the appellants case failed before the FtT. His account regarding what occurred in Iraq was found not to be credible. As discussed above that determination is open to doubt in light of the failure to expressly deal with the evidence of the wife. It may or may not have made a difference to the overall credibility of the account. However, none of that is relevant to the second issue. The second issue is that the appellant admitted to being a Dominican passport holder. There was no evidence that he could not safely live in Dominica. In those circumstances the FtT had no option but to reject the appellant’s claim for international protection. That fundamental position remains the same before me. Notwithstanding that I have found that there was an error of law it makes no difference to the outcome of the appeal before the FtT. It is not material to the outcome of the appeal and on that basis I must find that there is no material error of law.
Conclusion
14. For the reasons set out above we find that there is no material error of law and the appeal is refused.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the FtT did not involve the making of a material error on a point of law and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

S NEILSON
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
19.01.26