Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005556
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/01862/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

16th June 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MOXON

Between

MJ
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Hossainzadeh, Immigration Advice Authority
For the Respondent: Mr McVeety, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 1 June 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
Introduction
1. The Appellant is an Iraqi national of Kurdish ethnicity from the Independent Kurdish Region of Iraq. He was born in 1965.
2. He entered the United Kingdom clandestinely on 5th February 2021 and claimed asylum the following day. In summary, he claims that he had a business in Iraq buying and selling cars. He sold cars on credit to people within the government. However, they did not pay him the money owed which resulted in him being unable to repay his own debts to powerful people, including a Peshmerga called Sirwan, who had links with the KDP; and Feris Barziaway, a Peshmerga commander. Sirwan attended his home and his brother’s home and threatened the Appellant and his family with a gun. The Appellant went into hiding for 20 days before fleeing Iraq in June 2020. He travelled through Europe before arriving in the United Kingdom. He claims not to have identity documentation.
3. The claim was refused by the Respondent on 25th August 2023. The Appellant’s narrative account was rejected.
4. The Appellant appealed against the refusal of international protection albeit, on the day of the hearing, on 6th October 2025, it was confirmed through the Appellant’s representative that his appeal was limited to humanitarian and Article 3 grounds and that he was not pursuing asylum or Article 8 grounds of appeal. That appeal was dismissed by a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal in a determination dated 7th October 2025.
5. The 2025 First-tier Tribunal Judge’s determination was overturned by Upper Tribunal Judge Lodato on 23rd March 2026. He directed that the case remain in the Upper Tribunal for re-hearing.
6. At the outset of the hearing before me, Mr Hosseinzadeh helpfully confirmed that the grounds of appeal were limited to Article 3 and humanitarian protection. He confirmed that the issue concerning lack of documentation was not now being pursued considering the updated country guidance caselaw.
Evidence
7. I considered all the documentation provided by the parties. This was mostly contained within the Upper Tribunal error of law bundle, consisting of 363 pages. In addition, there was a small bundle provided by the Appellant prior to the error of law hearing of 29 pages. I also had sight of Judge Lodato’s determination. On the day of the hearing, I was provided with a further Appellant bundle, of 105 pages. I was told that this had been sent to the Upper Tribunal “last week”, which is outside of the directions for documents to be provided not less than two weeks before the hearing. Mr McVeety, however, confirmed that he had received a copy three weeks ago. I was therefore satisfied that it was fair and the interests of justice to allow that bundle to be included in the evidence and to proceed without delay. Neither party asked me to do otherwise.
8. The Appellant attended a screening interview on 9th February 2021 and an asylum interview on 11th November 2022. He has provided witness statements from himself dated 3rd November 2021, 26th August 2025, an undated witness statement to support the error of law application to the Upper Tribunal and 13th May 2026.
9. I heard oral evidence from the Appellant who was assisted by an interpreter with whom he confirmed he speaks the same language and dialect and understood. There was no difficulty with the interpretation throughout the hearing. He confirmed that he had signed the four witness statements and I was asked treat those as evidence in chief. He was cross-examined by Mr McVeety and re-examined by Mr Hossainzadeh. I also asked some questions of clarification.
Findings of fact
10. Given the date of the claim, the appeal is to be considered under the regime that was in place prior to the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
11. When assessing credibility, I have taken into account the guidance within MAH (Egypt) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 216, together with the other cases relied upon by the Appellant within the skeleton argument prepared by his representatives prior to the first appeal hearing.
12. There is nothing implausible about the Appellant’s claim of being in debt to people he fears. He has given a broadly consistent account throughout his claim and appeals that it is people to whom he owes money that he fears. Those features enhance his credibility.
13. However, there are various features of the evidence that significantly undermine the Appellant’s credibility:
a. The Appellant has been inconsistent about a core feature of his background account: namely the amount of money he owes. Within his screening interview and 2021 witness statement, the Appellant stated that he owed $200,000. However, in his asylum interview he initially stated that he owed $20,000. He explained that he owed $12,000 to Sirwan and $3,000 each to Aghe and Shirzad. Only when it was identified that this amounted to $18,000, and not the $20,000, did he add a further person, Moshir, to whom he said that he owed $2,000. Later in the same interview he said that he owed $120,000 to Sirwa. In his Upper Tribunal witness statement, he said that his total debt was approximately $20,000. I do not accept his explanation of why that statement says $20,000. He initially stated that he had noticed errors in the statement and asked for it to be changed but then said that he signed the statement as truthful as he was told that the content was accurate. I find the inconsistencies about the level of his debt to be materially undermining to his claim and do not accept that this is adequately explained by his reference to a book system where each book is worth $10,000;
b. The Appellant stated in interview that the cars he sold were valued at $2,000 to $4,500 yet said in the hearing that they were sold for tens of thousands of dollars;
c. Save for sating that Sirwan was a Peshmerga and powerful in his party, the Appellant provided little details about Sirwan’s level of influence and was generally vague when questioned in interview. Similarly, he was vague and provided very little detail when asked about the other people from whom he had borrowed money, despite saying that they were powerful. A lack of corroboration cannot properly undermine an appellant’s credibility in a claim for international protection, but the fact that the Appellant in this case has not attempted to obtain corroboration does. He claims to fear four powerful people in the IKR, yet has made no effort to obtain information, from the internet or elsewhere, to confirm their existence. He was asked specifically what efforts he had made and he evaded the question. Whilst corroborative information may not have proved available, the lack of any effort undermines the Appellant’s claim, particularly given that this has previously been raised by the Respondent and in the first appeal and that he is represented. As outlined below, the evidence from his wife and friends is not assessed as reliable;
d. The Appellant was vague when asked for the details of the incident where he says that Sirwan threatened himself and his family with a gun. He was unable to give specific detail in interview, such as the date when the incident occurred, which it undermining to his account given that this would have been such a significant event if it occurred;
e. The fact that the Appellant did not take his family into hiding, and the fact that they have not been subsequently harmed by Sirwan, is inconsistent with the Appellant’s account in interview that Sirwan had threatened his wife and son. He said in his 2021 witness statement that he feared for his family. He said several times in his asylum interview that Sirwan threatened both him and his family. He also stated this in his Upper Tribunal witness statement. I therefore do not accept the Appellant’s explanation that his family were not at risk and that moving them would have attracted attention;
f. Despite the Appellant claiming that he was being sought by a number of powerful people, he was nevertheless able to hide undetected in Iraq for 20 days despite hiding at a friend’s house and so a location that it would be expected the aggressors would have looked;
g. Within his screening interview the Appellant said that he had left his passport in Turkey. He made no reference to not having a CSID / INID. I note that the question only asked about a passport, but he was asked at the close of the interview if there was anything he wished to add and he did not take that opportunity to say that his CSID / INID had been taken from him. Similarly, within corrections from his solicitors, there is reference to his answer about his passport but no reference to other identity documentation no longer being available to him. Within his asylum interview he said that his passport was taken from him in Turkey. He was asked whether he had ever had any other documentation in Iraq and he replied: “I did I had an ID card and I had birth certificate but I only took my passport with me and the agent took it from me”. Within his 2025 witness statement the Appellant says that his CSID was taken from him by an agent in Turkey and that there was a misunderstanding in the asylum interview. I do not accept that explanation. The Appellant had the benefit of a trained interpreter with whom he confirmed he spoke the same language. Further, within his Upper Tribunal witness statement, he has reverted to the account that he did not take his CSID out of Iraq;
h. Throughout his evidence the Appellant was evasive. He failed to answer straightforward questions despite being asked repeatedly. He gave the impression of not having answers to the questions asked, for example when his family had been threatened and what efforts he had made to obtain evidence about the people to whom he claims he owes money. Mr Hossainzadeh argued that the manner in which the Appellant gave evidence should not be held against him as he is 61 years of age. However, there is no explanation why that age, which is not particularly old, would prevent the Appellant from answering straightforward questions in a straightforward manner. There were no submissions or evidence of any conditions that would prevent him from doing do;
i. The Appellant travelled through Europe, including Germany and France, but did not claim asylum until his arrival in the United Kingdom. In his 2021 witness statement he said that he did not claim asylum in Europe as he was under the control of an agent. He said in his screening interview that he was advised in Greece that the United Kingdom was the best place to claim asylum. Within subsequent clarifications from his solicitors, it is said that one of the people he owed money has a brother in France. In his asylum interview he said that the aggressors had family in both Germany and France. He has latterly reverted to the account that he was under the control of an agent. Given the changing account, I do not accept his explanation for not claiming asylum in safe countries. In any event, he could have sought to rely upon the authorities in those safe countries, particularly in Germany where he was arrested in January 2021 and so had contact with German police. His failure, without good reason, to claim asylum in those safe countries is damaging to his credibility, as is the fact that he has sought to change his explanation.
14. The Appellant has provided additional documentation to support his appeal. This includes a short translated copy of a complaint made by his wife, dated 1st May 2026, about being threatened by Sirwan and saying that before then she was not aware that the Appellant had been in debt. Having applied the test in Tanveer Ahmed, I do not consider that document to be reliable. I firstly note the adverse credibility findings outlined above. I also note the fact that the complaint does not say when the alleged crime is said to have occurred. I asked the Appellant what threats it relates to and he said that it was the 2020 threats. When I asked why it had taken his wife six years to complain, he then said that there had been recent threats.
15. The Appellant has also provided supportive statements from others as to his business in Iraq and the fact that he was in debt. He was asked why that evidence had not been provided earlier and he did not answer the question but instead said that he knows people in the United Kingdom who know of his difficulties. He was asked why those people had not attended to give evidence and he said that he did not know that they would be required and he could phone them. Given that the Appellant has sought to rely upon other evidence to support his account, and given that he is represented, I do not consider it credible that he would not have known, or have been advised, to bring witnesses. I was satisfied that it was fair and in the interests of justice not to allow him to telephone claimed witnesses during the hearing or to adjourn for further evidence. I note that there was no application for me to undertake those actions and, in any event, given the lack of good reason for such evidence not being provided earlier, proceeding without delay was fair and pursuant to the overriding objective.
16. I have stood back and considered all the evidence in the round and given as much weight as I feel able to the evidence that is supportive of the Appellant’s claim. However, I am not satisfied, even upon the requisite low standard, that the Appellant has accrued unpaid debts in Iraq to people who he fears and from whom he has subsequently received threats. I find that he has fabricated a narrative account to pursue an unmeritorious claim for asylum.
17. Given the adverse credibility findings, I do not accept that the Appellant does not have access to his identity documentation or the necessary information to obtain replacements. In any event, he no longer claims this to be a bar to return.
18. I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the Appellant would face a real risk of serious harm as defined by paragraph 339C of the Immigration Rules or face a real risk of a breach of his protected human rights. I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that he will be exposed to a real risk of torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (contrary to Article 3) or death (contrary to Article 2).
19. He has not pursued an asylum ground of appeal but, even had he done so, I would have dismissed that ground also as I do not accept that there is a reasonable degree of likelihood that returning the Appellant to Iraq would expose him to a real risk of an act of persecution for reasons set out in Regulation 6 of the Refugee or Person in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006.
20. The appeal against the refusal of international protection is therefore dismissed.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal was found by Upper Tribunal Judge to contain a material error of law
The case has been retained by the Upper Tribunal and reheard
The appeal against the Respondent’s refusal to grant international protection is dismissed

DUTJ N. Moxon
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

3rd June 2026