Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003371

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/66198/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 29th December 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PAUL LEWIS

Between

AA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr. Aziz Lei Dat & Beig Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms. Newton, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 15 December 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Anonymity was ordered by the First-tier Tribunal. No application to discharge was made. It remains in force.

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, a citizen of Iraq, appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge (the ‘judge’) promulgated on 3rd March 2025.

Grounds of appeal

2. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds on 28th August 2025 on three grounds, it being arguable that the judge materially erred his assessment as to whether:

(i) There there would be sufficient protection to the appellant;

(ii) He could internally relocate; and

(iii) In dismissing the appellant’s humanitarian protection claim without properly engaging with the appellant’s evidence.

The third ground is dependent upon grounds (i) and/or (ii) being established.

The hearing

3. The Respondent has not filed a response pursuant to Rule 24 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (the ‘Rules’). The appeal was opposed by Ms. Newton.

4. Prior to the hearing the appellant applied to introduce new evidence pursuant to Rule 15(2) of the Rules. Having reflected on the relevance of the proposed additional material and the merits of the application more widely, Mr. Aziz withdrew the application. The issues raised in the appellant’s skeleton argument, in so far as they refer to proposed new material, are not relevant to this appeal.

The hearing and issues at the FTT

5. The appellant claim asylum based on his imputed political opinion. The respondent accepted the core of his claim agreeing that he was of Kurdish ethnicity; had been targeted by the PKK; and left Iraq in fear of further harm from the PKK. The core of the appellant’s account having been agreed, he did not given evidence before the judge.

6. The appellant’s skeleton argument submits that the Judge made an error my making a finding against the appellant in relation to facts which had been accepted by the Respondent. At [24] the judge makes a finding regarding an injury occurring to the appellant’s brother, specifically that the injury was not connected to adverse interest in the appellant from the PKK. Nothing material turns on this finding, and sensibly Mr. Aziz did not peruse it further.

Discussion

Ground 1: Sufficiency of protection

7. As to the protection available to the appellant on return, at [25] of his decision, the judge found:

‘The Respondent accepts that the appellant is of adverse interest to the PKK, a widely recognised terrorist organisation operating in some parts of Kurdistan, but not operating widely across Kurdistan without restraint, as the appellant contends. I find that there is persuasive evidence that the government of the KRG is able to protect individuals from the PKK…..the appellant has not sought protection from the KRG authorities before he fled Iraq (and) …has not contemplated the potential protection from the authorities as a resort available to him.’

8. In assessing the sufficiency of protection available to the appellant, it is submitted that the Judge failed to consider the ‘extensive country evidence’. An examination of the material before the First-tier Tribunal does not reveal extensive country evidence was presented to the Judge. The only document referred to in written or oral submissions before me was namely the Country Policy and Information Note: Actors of Protection (the ‘CPIN’). The CPIN has been superseded and updated, effective September 2025. Nothing turns on which version of the CPIN applies.

9. Ms. Newton submits that the judge did give proper consideration to the country evidence and simply reached a conclusion with which the appellant now disagrees.

10. At [26] to [28], the Judge did consider the CPIN. At [27] the judge referred directly to an extract from the CPIN and reached a conclusion based on the background evidence and the evidence as to the appellant’s brother’s links to the Peshmerga.

11. The appellant’s complaint here is that the judge gave weight to one aspect of the CPIN and not another. This is not an error of law, but a disagreement with the weight the judge gave to aspects of the evidence.

Ground 2: Internal relocation

12. The second ground of appeal is predicated on the basis that the judge erred in accepting that the appellant would be able to relocate outside of the Zakho area and in particular that he would be able to relocate to Erbil. The judge’s conclusions are described within the appellant’s skeleton argument as speculative.

13. Again, Ms. Newton characterised this ground as a disagreement with the judge’s findings, not an error of law.

14. The appellant did not give evidence or call witnesses before the First-tier Judge. The appellant’s witness statement was silent, relied on in submissions, does not address the issue of Internal relocation. I therefore asked Mr. Aziz to take me to the piece(s) of evidence that it is submitted the judge failed to take into account. In response Mr. Aziz took me to a single question and answer in the course of the appellant’s interview with the respondent on 14th July 2023, reproduced below:

Q: ‘Could you move somewhere else’?

A: ‘The PKK are very dangerous and they are everywhere in Kurdistan. They also have links to the Iraqi government so this would be dangerous if I moved to the Arab areas, in addition to the fact that I am a Sunni Kurd and most of the population is Shia Arab.’

15. The Judge’s findings on the issue of relocation are set out at [29]:

‘…He could be returned to a major location such as Erbil. There is no evidence to suggest that the PJKK have any reach as far as Erbil and as the Appellant is a young man in good health who as an education to high school level and has a work history as a barber, I am not persuaded that relocation internally is not available to him and that he would be able to re-establish himself there with the support of his family. There are no documentary obstacles to his return as the appellant has conceded.’

16. The judge’s finding(s) are properly reasoned and based on evidence. The appellant’s grounds before me, seek in terms to argue, in terms that the judge failed to consider material which was not before him at the appeal. The findings of the judge do not disclose an error of law.

Ground 3: The appellant’s humanitarian protection claim

17. As set out at (2) above, the third ground of appeal is dependent upon either of the first two grounds being established. They have not been. No submissions on this ground were advanced by Mr. Aziz and I do not need to consider the matter further.

Notice of Decision

The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve a material error of law. Judge Austins decision of 3rd March 2025 stands. The appeal is dismissed.

Paul Lewis

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

16th December 2025