Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005458

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/62692/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 1st May 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LOKE

Between

HIQ
(AnONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms I Reynard, Counsel instructed by Fountain Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr M Parvar, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on Tuesday 14 April 2026 Field House

DECISION AND REASONS
BACKGROUND
1. The Appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Mulholland dated 3 October 2025 (“the Decision”) dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s decision dated 13 November 2023 refusing his protection claim made on 4 October 2019.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by Judge Owens on 5 January 2026 on some, but not all of the original grounds. It was agreed by all parties that the grant of permission did not allow all original grounds to be argued, and it was only the grounds upon which permission was granted that formed the remit of this hearing. The grounds in summary are:
Ground 1- That the Judge failed to consider the the asylum interview where the Appellant stated his father’s superior had told the aggressor clan that he was not at his property.
Ground 2- That the Judge failed to provide adequate reasons for finding the Appellant was not in contact with his family.
Ground 3- That the Judge failed to have regard to the country guidance when considering risk upon return.
3. I had before me a bundle running to 742 pages (pdf) ([B/xx]) containing the documents relevant to the appeal before us, and the Appellant’s and Respondent’s bundles before the First-tier Tribunal. There has been no Rule 24 Reply from the Respondent.
DISCUSSION
4. With respect of Ground 1, the Judge stated at [11] that:
In his witness statement, he mentioned that his home was raided by the victim’s family. However, he also stated during interview that the victim’s family knew the location where he was hiding and that the family contacted the person hiding him daily to ask that he hand him in (434/AIR Q83). Given his account that the victim’s family had raided his family home looking for him, it is difficult to accept that the victim’s family would not raid the home of the person hiding the Appellant if they knew he was there. This seriously lacks credibility and goes to the core of the claim.
The Appellant submits that in his asylum interview, the Appellant had stated at Q85 that his father’s superior had told the victim’s family that he was not present at the address.
5. Looking at the asylum interview, it is worth considering Q85 in context of the preceding questions:
82. Do you know anything about his father for example his occupation or how many children he had?
I do not have any information about him, I just want to clarify also threatened my father's superior, they will get him into trouble if they refuse to hand me over. This family put him under too much pressure, they wanted him to hand me over to him so that they can take revenge for killing his son

83. How did the family put pressure to your father's superior?
They contacted him daily and they ask him to hand me in

84. Did the family know where your father's superior lived?
Of course they knew they came to the house, they wanted to hand me over to them for killing their son

85. What would your father's superior say to the family?
He told them that I wasn't there and that my maternal uncles helped and I had left Iraq
The Appellant stated at Q85 that his father’s superior told the family the Appellant was not there. However, it is also plain from the preceding questions that the victim’s family knew or believed the Appellant to be at the address for some time. There is no evidence as to how the family knew the Appellant was at the address, but according to the Appellant they had been pressuring his father’s superior daily asking him to hand over the Appellant.
6. Thus the Judge’s view, namely that she found it difficult to accept that the victim’s family would not raid the home of the Appellant’s father’s superior if they knew he was there remains a secure finding on the evidence. I do not find Ground 1 discloses an error of law.
7. Turning to Ground 2, that the Judge failed to provide adequate reasons as to why the Appellant was no longer in contact with his family, it was submitted that the Judge failed to consider the fact that his father was detained after handing himself in, and that his father’s commander took his telephone from him (Asylum interview A90).
8. Looking at [16-17] of the Decision, the Judge gave a number of reasons for finding it difficult to accept that the Appellant was no longer in touch with his family. Firstly, she pointed out that the Appellant remained in Iraq with his father’s superior for 4 further days after his father handed himself in. Thus there was four days in which the Appellant could have contacted his mother to inform her of his plans or to have retrieved his essential contact numbers from his phone. Secondly the Judge’s further observations, that he had not tried contacting the Red Cross, or writing his mother a letter were perfectly valid. Thirdly, the Judge further referred to the Appellant’s evidence that he had not called them because his family had no knowledge of modern technology, which was belied by his own account that they had spoken on the phone on 21 August 2019. In my assessment, the Judge did provide additional and adequate reasons as to why she found his account of not contacting his family not credible, notwithstanding the fact the Appellant may not have had his phone after the 28 August 2019. I am satisfied that Ground 2 does not disclose an error of law.
9. Turning to Ground 3, it is submitted that the Judge failed to consider the objective evidence regarding the risk of return, particularly the categories at risk in accordance with the country guidance case of SMO and KSP (Civil status documentation, article 15) (CG)) Iraq [2022] UKUT 110, which was the country guidance case at the time, which is now superseded by AH, AK & AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI) Iraq CG [2026] UKUT 00150 (IAC).
10. The Judge only considered the country guidance with respect of whether the Appellant would be able to retrieve his identity documents. It is correct that the Judge did not consider the country guidance with respect of his risk of return per se. This is an error, however I must consider whether it is a material error of law.
11. Turning to the authorities, I note the headnote of the 2026 country guidance at paragraph 5 mirrors the previous country guidance. The Appellant has never claimed to be politically active in Iraq. Furthermore, the Judge found that his activities in the United Kingdom were low-level and would not have reached the attention of the Iraqi authorities. Therefore, the only category the Appellant falls into is the fact that he is of Kurdish origin; membership of a minority group. However, the Appellant hails from Tepe Sawz, which is in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (‘IKR’). In the Respondent’s review at B/740 the Respondent confirms that the Appellant would be returned directly to the IKR. Even if the Judge had considered the country guidance with respect of risk on return, the Judge would have found that the Appellant was returnable. I am satisfied Ground 3 discloses no material error of law in the circumstances.

NOTICE OF DECISION
12. The Appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.
13. The decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Mulholland dismissing HIQ’s appeal stands.

S Y Loke
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Loke
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
28 April 2026