Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-004393
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/66721/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 23rd of October 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McCARTHY

Between

BO
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Miss A Imanovic
For the Respondent: Mrs R Arif

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 20 October 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

1. The Appellant appeals against the decision and reasons of First-tier Tribunal Judge Rae-Reeves that was issued on 22/05/2025. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Lindsley on 22/10/2025.

2. An anonymity order was made in the First-tier Tribunal. Neither party objected to my proposal to renew that order in the Upper Tribunal for the same reasons given in the First-tier Tribunal.

3. The Appellant did not attend the hearing. Miss Ivanovic did not expect him to attend and invited me to proceed in his absence, which I did.

4. Judge Lindsley concluded it was arguable the Judge failed to properly apply paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules. In other words, having found that the appellant had experienced serious harm in Iraq in the past when he was illtreated while detained in 2018 and 2021, should the Judge have started his evaluation with the question, “Were there good reasons why the serious harm would not repeat itself if there had been no change in regime in Iraq and [the Appellant] continued to behave as he has done in the past”?

5. At the end of the hearing, I decided that the Judge’s decision contained legal error and had to be set aside. I amplify the brief reasons I gave.

6. The Judge set out the core of the Appellant’s claim in paragraphs 10 to 18 of the decision. After analysing the evidence, the Judge found the following parts of the claim to be credible.

a. The appellant was a supporter (not an organiser or leader) of the NGP,
b. The Appellant attended demonstrations in Iraq.
c. The Appellant was arrested in May 2018 after attending a demonstration and held for 12 days, during which time he was physically abused.
d. The Appellant was arrested at home in Erbil in October 2021 following the elections. He was detained for one week, during which he was verbally and physically abused.
e. The Appellant attended several demonstrations in the UK in 2024.

7. The Judge rejected the other parts of the claim as lacking credibility or fabricated to bolster the case. In particular, the Judge rejected the claimed sanction imposed after the October 2021 arrest, and whether the Appellant’s activities in the UK increased his risk of serious harm.

8. These findings are not challenged.

9. It is established law that an Appellant may exaggerate, embellish or fabricate some parts of their account while the core of the claim remains credible. The Judge had this approach in mind when he carefully evaluated the different parts of the Appellant’s claim, resulting in his finding that the above parts of the claim are credible despite other parts not being so.

10. The Judge slipped into legal error when he evaluated whether on the factual findings he made, the Appellant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Iraq. Based on his positive findings, it was incumbent on the Judge to apply the principle formulated now as paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules. Despite Mrs Arif’s attempt to persuade me the Judge applied this principle, there is nothing in the decision that gives me confidence he did.

11. Although the above findings are preserved, they are insufficient to re-decide the appeal. It will be necessary for further evidence to be taken so that the circumstances surrounding the arrests, treatment in detention, and release can be evaluated. Evidence will also be needed to examine the nature of the Appellant’s political beliefs and the likelihood of him engaging in further protest if returned to Iraq. This is not intended to restrict the areas of further evidence but are examples of what might need to be explored so that a proper evaluation of risk on return, including that which arise because of past persecution, can be undertaken. Of course, it will be for the Respondent to establish that there is no real risk the past persecution will be repeated by the authorities.

Notice of Decision

1. The decision contains legal error and is set aside.

2. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be decided by a judge other than Judge Rae Reeves.

3. The following factual findings are preserved.

a. The appellant was a supporter (not an organiser or leader) of the NGP,
b. The Appellant attended demonstrations in Iraq.
c. The Appellant was arrested in May 2018 after attending a demonstration and held for 12 days, during which time he was physically abused.
d. The Appellant was arrested at home in Erbil in October 2021 following the elections. He was detained for one week, during which he was verbally and physically abused.
e. The Appellant attended several demonstrations in the UK in 2024.

Judge John McCarthy

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber