Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003971

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/02323/2024
PA/58833/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

17th November 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FRANCES

Between

S T
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Islam, instructed by Fountain Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Ahmed, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 3 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 is a national of Iran born in 1993. He appeals against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dated 9 July 2025 dismissing his appeal against the refusal of his protection claim on asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights grounds.
2. It is the appellant’s case that he arrived in the UK, travelling through Turkey, Italy and France, and claimed asylum on 12 August 2021. The appellant worked as a shepherd/farmer and Kolbar for about two years before he left Iran. He smuggled electrical tools, alcohol, cigarettes and fabric into Iran. His problems began in July 2021 when he heard that supporters of political parties were being arrested. The appellant and his father supported the Democratic party, Sahzamai Kahbati Kurdistan and Komela party, by providing goods and food to the Peshmerga. The appellant had attended 12 demonstrations in front of the Iranian embassy and was politically active on Facebook.
3. The respondent accepted the appellant is of Kurdish ethnicity, he worked as a Kolbar smuggling goods across the border and he exited Iran illegally. The respondent did not find the appellant’s account to be credible because it was lacking in detail and inconsistent. It was not accepted the appellant was politically active or that his sur place activity was as a result of genuinely held political beliefs. The appellant would not be of adverse interest on return.
The FTT decision
4. The First-tier Tribunal Judge (‘the judge’) found that the appellant accepted he did not distribute political material and he was not a member of a political party. He had never been directly threatened by the authorities but he feared being arrested because of his support for all Kurdish parties by transporting their goods and belongings. The judge considered the CPIN on Smugglers dated February 2022 and the country guidance of HB (Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 430. The judge found that the background evidence did not support the appellant’s account of an increase in the number of arrests and the appellant never smuggled illegal items such as drugs, arms or alcohol.
5. At [46], the judge did not accept the appellant was being actively watched by the Iranian authorities because having worked as a Kolbar for two years he had not been arrested or detained and there was evidence in the background material that there is a degree of tolerance of smuggling. The judge found the appellant had no political profile at all in Iran and he did not genuinely fear persecution at [49].
6. The judge considered the appellant’s Facebook account comprising 650 pages and concluded it did not assist him very much because there was no identification number or profile name; the URL referred to “mbhatti”; there was no indication the IP addresses were attached to the appellant and some of the metadata stated that the image had been modified (for example the photograph dated December 12, 2022). In addition, the pages in Farsi or Kurdish were not translated. The judge attached limited weight to this evidence.
7. The judge accepted the appellant had attended some demonstrations outside the Iranian embassy but attached limited weight to the images posted on Facebook because the appellant was illiterate and had the assistance of friends to curate his Facebook page. The judge inferred the appellant did not understand the content of the posts and therefore his Facebook page could not be a reflection of his genuine political beliefs. The extent of the appellant’s political activity in the UK was limited to his attendance at a number of demonstrations outside the Iranian embassy.
8. At [62] the judge concluded:
“On the basis of the findings made above, the appellant would be returning as a single, young man to his home area on the border. I have found that prior to leaving Iran, he had not political profile and, in the UK, he has a political profile as a Kurdish male who has attended demonstrations outside the Iranian Embassy on more than one occasion. He previously worked as a Kolbar where he did not carry any political material or any illegal goods such as alcohol, drugs or weapons. The appellant did not say that he would work as a Kolbar again on return. As such, he would not be at risk on return. He last worked as a Kobar (sic) four years ago, He was never arrested in that capacity and, unless he started such work again, there would be no risk presented to him on return.”
9. The judge considered XX (PJAK – sur place activities-Facebook) Iran [2022] UKUT 00023 (IAC). The judge found that any search carried out by the Iranian authorities would not reveal the appellant as being the owner of the profile on Facebook should he need to apply for an ETD. The judge inferred from the appellant’s attendance at demonstrations that he did not have a genuine commitment but was seeking to bolster his asylum claim. The judge concluded the appellant did not have a political profile in Iran or in the UK. He considered the hair trigger approach with regard to Kurdish political groups and found that the appellant would not continue with any political activity on return. Applying the lower standard, the appellant would not be at risk on return.
Grounds of appeal
10. It is submitted in Ground 1 that the judge failed to give adequate reasons for his adverse credibility finding and for finding the appellant would not be at risk on return. The judge failed to consider the CPIN and unfairly assessed the appellant’s claim based on his ability to corroborate his account that he is of adverse interest to the authorities. The judge failed to properly apply country guidance. Ground 2 submits the judge made a material error of fact.
11. Permission was granted by the First-tier Tribunal on the grounds the judge arguably made an error of fact in finding that the appellant was not involved in smuggling illegal goods such as alcohol when it was apparent from his witness statement and interview that he claimed to have smuggled alcohol. Permission was granted on ground 1 in so far as it was parasitic on ground 2.
Submissions
12. In summary, Mr Islam submitted the judge had missed a key part of the evidence and had not considered the consequences to the appellant of bringing alcohol into Iran. The judge failed to consider whether the support the appellant provided for the Peshmerga would amount to an imputed political opinion. The judge’s consideration of whether the appellant’s political beliefs were genuinely held was insufficient. The appellant’s activities as a Kolbar would put him at risk on return. The judge had failed to consider all the evidence in the round and to properly apply country guidance.
13. Ms Ahmed submitted the error of fact was not material given the judge’s finding that the appellant had not been arrested as a Kolbar and he was of no interest to the authorities in Iran. The judge considered the CPIN and his findings at 45, 46 and 62 were open to him on the evidence before him. The appellant’s submissions on ground 1 were merely disagreements with the judge’s findings. The judge gave adequate reasons for why the appellant was not credible and why he attached little weight to the Facebook account. The judge considered all the evidence in the round and did not expect corroboration. The judge properly applied country guidance and there was no material error of law in the decision.
Conclusions and reasons
14. It was accepted by the respondent that the judge made a mistake of fact in finding the appellant had not been involved in smuggling illegal goods because it was apparent from his witness statement and interview that he stated he had smuggled alcohol. However, I find this error of fact was not material to the judge’s adverse credibility finding or his conclusion that the appellant would not be at risk on return because these findings were not premised on the type of goods the appellant was smuggling.
15. The error of fact was not material to the judge’s findings that the appellant was not politically active in Iran or the UK, he was of no interest to the authorities prior to coming to the UK and he would be of no interest on return.
16. It was the appellant’s own evidence that he had worked as a Kolbar for two years before he came to the UK in 2021. The appellant had not come to the attention of the authorities during that time. He had not been threatened by the authorities or arrested and detained. The background evidence did not support the appellant’s account that the number of arrests was increasing.
17. It was the appellant’s case that he was at risk on return because he supported the Peshmerga by supplying them with food and drink, transporting their belongings and his father invited them into his home. The judge considered the appellant’s case in the context of the background material and properly applied country guidance. The appellant stated in his written and oral evidence that he did not have any difficulties with the authorities before he left Iran. The judge gave adequate reasons for why he did not accept the appellant was being watched by the Iranian authorities at [46].
18. The judge gave cogent reasons for the weight he attached the Facebook account and why he concluded the appellant’s activities in the UK were not based on any genuinely held political beliefs. The appellant was not a member of a political party and had not distributed political material in Iran. His attendance at demonstrations outside the Iranian embassy was insufficient to show he was genuinely politically active in the UK.
19. Mr Islam’s reference to WAS (Pakistan) [2023] EWCA Civ 894 was misplaced. He accepted there was no mention of facial recognition in the CPIN and it was not argued before the FTT. The judge did not require the appellant to corroborate his account and Mr Islam did not address this in oral submissions.
20. The judge’s findings at [62] were open to him on the evidence before him. The error of fact was not material and did not give rise to an error of law. The judge gave adequate reasons for why the appellant’s sur place activities would not put him at risk on return and there was no misapplication of country guidance. I find there was no material error of law in the judge’s decision of 9 July 2025.
Notice of Decision
Appeal dismissed
J Frances
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 November 2025