Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003463

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/60594/2024
LP/02489/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 2nd of December 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAHMOOD
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HUGHES

Between

BS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Zada, United Immigration and Visa Services.
For the Respondent: Dr Ibisi, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 18 November 2025

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
1. The Appellant appeals with permission a decision of a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (‘The Judge’), promulgated following a hearing in the Virtual Region on 16 April 2025, in which the Judge refused his protection and Human Rights appeal.
2. The Appellant is a citizen of Iran of Kurdish ethnicity. The basis of his claim is recorded briefly by the Judge at [3] in the following terms:
“The Appellant asserts that on 22 January 2023, he was involved in distributing leaflets in support of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDPI) and was subsequently targeted by the Iranian authorities. After fleeing to a friend's house and receiving assistance from his father, he escaped Iran with the help of a smuggler. While in the UK, the Appellant claims to have continued his support for the KDPI by participating in protests and being active on social media. He fears that, if returned to Iran, he would face torture or execution by the Iranian authorities due to his political activities.”
3. The Respondent’s decision dated 11 April 2024 accepted the Appellant’s identity, but little else about his claim. Having rejected his account of being involved in the distribution of political materials in Iran, and thereby coming to the adverse attention of the Iranian authorities, the material facts of his claim that would have created a real risk of persecution had not been established. The sur place activities were insufficient to put the appellant at risk on return.
4. The Judge’s findings are set out from [29] of the decision under challenge, leading to it being found in the briefest of terms at [44-47

“Is the appellant at an enhanced risk as a result of his Kurdish ethnicity?
44. The appellant’s Kurdish ethnicity is a risk factor. The CPIN confirms that Kurds are subject to heightened scrutiny and surveillance, especially if they are politically active. However, the absence of significant political activity or a high-profile profile reduces the likelihood that the appellant would face persecution based solely on his ethnicity.

Has the appellant participated in political sur place activities in the United Kingdom?
45. Yes, the appellant has participated in sur place activities, including attending protests and posting on social media. However, his involvement appears to be passive, and there is no significant media coverage of his activities, which weakens the likelihood that the Iranian authorities would target him for persecution.

If so, would the sur place activities place the appellant at a real risk of adverse attention from the Iranian authorities?
46. No, the appellant’s sur place activities do not appear to attract the level of attention from the Iranian authorities necessary to make him a target for persecution. The lack of media coverage, the low-profile nature of his activities, and his limited involvement in protests reduce the risk of adverse attention from the authorities. The case law from XX and S v SSHD suggests that low-profile activities are unlikely to result in adverse attention from the authorities.

Does the appellant meet the requirements in Appendix PL of the immigration rules relating to private life?
47. No, the appellant does not meet the requirements of Appendix PL. His time in the UK has been relatively short, and there are no exceptional circumstances that would warrant protection based on his private life. The appellant has strong family support networks in Iran, and internal relocation is a viable option.”
5. In his somewhat discursive application for permission to appeal the Judge’s decision, dated 24 April 2025, the Appellant alleges the Judge had erred in law in a number of respects, helpfully summarised by Judge Mulready when granting permission to appeal on 18 June 2025 as follows:

“The grounds are that the Judge failed to give reasons for the finding the Appellant’s political activities were low profile and did not attract real risk from Iranian authorities, failed to engage with material evidence, failed to engage with the relevant CPIN, applied the wrong standard of proof, relied on irrelevant case law, failed to consider the guidance in BA (Demonstrators in Britain) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 36, and failed to correctly apply section 32 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.”
6. Judge Mulready’s grant of permission to appeal set out:

“It does not appear to have been in dispute that the Appellant left Iran illegally, which following BA makes him “likely” to be questioned on return. The decision does not include consideration of this aspect of the BA Decision, nor that following HB(Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 430 even Kurds expressing peaceful dissent or who speak out about Kurdish rights face a real risk of persecution or Article 3 ill treatment. If the Appellant’s political activities are in good faith, as the Judge appears to have found, then he cannot be expected to lie about his political beliefs if questioned on return, or thereafter. The Decision does not include consideration of the cumulative effect on risk on return of these various relevant features of the Appellant’s profile. This is arguably material to the outcome of the appeal. The grounds are not easily disentangled from one another, and so noting Rai and DAM (Grounds of Appeal – Limited Grant of Permission) [2025] UKUT 00150 (IAC), I grant permission on all grounds.”
7. On 11 August a Rule 24 response was filed on behalf of the Respondent, in which material errors of law in the Judge’s decision were conceded, in accordance with the grant of permission.
8. At the outset of the hearing before us Dr Ibisi, on behalf of the Respondent, accepted that material errors of law had been made by the Judge, for all of the reasons set out in by Judge Mulready, and accordingly that the appeal was not resisted. We conclude that the concession made by the Respondent was correctly made. We therefore conclude that there is a material error of law in the Judge’s decision, and we set it aside.
9. Applying AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC), we have considered whether to retain the matter for remaking in the Upper Tribunal, in line with the general principle set out in paragraph 7 of the Senior President’s Practice Statement. We are satisfied that given the extent of the errors of law in the First-tier Tribunal decision, it would be appropriate to remit this matter so that the Appellant has an opportunity to present his appeal on a proper footing before a First-tier Tribunal Judge. Each representative agreed with this course, and submitted that no findings made by the Judge should be preserved.

Notice of Decision and Directions
10. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside for the reasons set out above with no findings preserved.
11. The remaking of the decision in the appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal at Manchester.
12. Usually, directions are left to the FTT, but to assist with ensuring that the next hearing is effective at the FTT, we make the following directions to assist.

(i) By no later than 28 days after the promulgation of this decision the Appellant must upload to the MyHMCTS online portal an up to date and consolidated bundle of evidence upon which reliance will be placed at the re-hearing of this appeal before the First-tier Tribunal.
(ii) By no later than 14 days following the upload of the Appellant’s consolidated bundle of evidence the Respondent must undertake a meaningful and pragmatic review of this appeal and upload the same to the MyHMCTS online portal.
(iii) The appeal will be relisted by the First-tier Tribunal as a priority on the first available date thereafter. A Kurdish Sorani interpreter is required.

Leighton Hughes
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
19 November 2025