Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000032
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/54657/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 18th of May 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE R FRANTZIS

Between

IMA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr C Holmes (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr N Wain (Counsel)

Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 20 April 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. I have decided to maintain the anonymity order originally made in these proceedings by the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) because the underlying claim involves international protection issues in that the Appellant claims to fear persecution or serious harm on return to Iraq. In reaching this decision, I am mindful of the fundamental principle of open justice but I am satisfied, taking the Appellant’s case at its highest for these purposes, that the potential grave risks outweigh the rights of the public to know of his identity.
2. The Appellant appeals with permission against the decision, dated 9th December 2025, of the FtT to dismiss his appeal on all grounds (“the Decision”).
Background
3. The broad factual background to the appeal is not in dispute between the Parties. The Appellant, his wife and three children are citizens of Iraq and also Dominica. The Appellant fears non state agents in Iraq. Whilst the Respondent accepted that the Appellant had received a threatening letter at the clinic where he worked and that an attempt was made to persuade the Appellant to sell expired medication, it was not accepted that the Appellant had been followed twice in his car, that the tribal leader to whom the Appellant had turned for help had attempted extortion, that his house was shot at and that powerful people had threatened his life. The Appellant also raised, at a later stage, a risk of FGM and forced marriage for his children.
4. The Respondent refused the Appellant’s claim on 25th March 2024.
Appeal to the Upper Tribunal
5. The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s refusal of his claim to the FtT. His appeal was dismissed on all grounds. The FtT made the following findings of fact:
a. “I am prepared to accept that the Appellant was followed after he had refused to co-operate with the mafia gang which was seeking to profit from the supply of out of date medication, that he attempted to seek protection from a tribal leader who attempted to take advantage of his financial circumstances by extorting money from him, that shots had been fired at his house and that his life had been threatened” [8]
b. “As to the 2018 threatening letter, I am satisfied that the Appellant would not be at real risk from ISIS, which is a spent force in Iraq, on return there. The letter was sent to him some time ago now, and he was not working at the Peshmerga hospital when he left Iraq” [9]
c. “I am satisfied that the Appellant and his wife would be able to successfully resist any desire on the part of the family or wider tribe to forcefully marry their daughters or expose them to FGM” [10]
d. “Turning to the risk to the Appellant from mafia like gangs or the tribal leader, he has explained that he obtained Dominica (sic) citizenship when his family was threatened in 2021” [11]
e. “I accept that Dominica is a small country of only 750km², with a population of 72,400. English is the main language. Whilst I appreciate that the Appellant may never have visited, it has to be acknowledged that he had not previously been to the UK, but has managed to establish himself and his family here. The background evidence confirms that there is a small but existing Muslim population. There was no evidence before me to suggest that the Appellant’s children would not receive an education in Dominica. There may be an earthquake risk, and the hurricane season lasts for six months of the year, but the Worldsupporter report which was provided by the Appellant’s representatives at page 1004 onwards of the bundle states that the country has developed good healthcare policies in several areas such as mental health and disaster management.” [12]
f. “Public healthcare is free for residents and foreigners with legal residency. The background evidence goes on to explain that there are “plenty” of general practitioners in both private and public clinics and hospitals. Of significance is the comment that basic dental care is available through the public health care system. For more extensive care, an individual would need to visit a private clinic. As professionals in this field, I am satisfied that the skills of the Appellant and his wife are likely to be in demand in Dominica.” [14]
g. “The Appellant asserted that he could not relocate to Dominica because he could be followed there. Whilst I appreciate that travellers holding Iraqi passports are welcomed to Dominica without the need for a tourist visa in 2025 and can stay for up to 21 days, I do not find it reasonably likely that the Appellant would be found in Dominica. I do not believe that a mafia like gang in Iraq would be alerted to the family’s arrival there or that they would travel, effectively, across the world to find him. I also conclude that the tribal leader’s interest in the Appellant would have ceased when he left the country. The background evidence shows that Dominica is generally safe.” [16]
h. “Article 1C(3) of the Refugee Convention states that it will cease to apply if the applicant has acquired a new nationality and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality. I am satisfied that this applies to the Appellant. For all of the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that it would not be unreasonable to expect him to relocate to Dominica. There would be no real risk to him or his family there.” [17]
6. The Appellant contends that the FtT has erred in law. In a decision dated 29th January 2026, this Tribunal granted permission to appeal. That permission was not limited although a view was expressed as to the merit of certain of the Grounds of Appeal.
7. Before me, Mr Holmes crystallised the challenge to the Decision and for clarity I have labelled that challenge as follows:
i. Ground 1 – the FtT has erred by failing to have regard to material matters, specifically the Appellant’s own evidence at [26] of his witness statement dated 1st September 2025 where he details that he and his family would be found in Dominica, particularly when the FtT had accepted his core narrative as credible. Mr Holmes, rightly in my view, did not rely on nor refer to the article attached to the Grounds of Appeal which, as the author of the Grant of Permission observed, was not before the FtT;
ii. Ground 2 – the FtT has applied a test of reasonableness to the question of whether the Appellant and his family could live in Dominica. There is no authority in support of that being the threshold test when dealing with return to a safe country. Furthermore, the FtT has failed to adequately consider the situation of the Appellant’s eldest daughter in this context;
iii. Ground 3 – the FtT has failed to adequately consider matters material to the where the best interests of the Appellant’s children lie before concluding that they lie with them remaining with their parents.
8. Mr Wain relied upon the Rule 24 Response dated 23rd February 2026, made oral submissions and maintained that the Decision should be upheld.
Discussion
9. As the Court of Appeal in MH Bangladesh v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 688 emphasised, “there have been many recent authorities in both the Supreme Court and this Court on the need for appellate courts and tribunals to be cautious before interfering with findings of fact and evaluative assessments by lower courts and tribunals, and in particular specialist tribunals such as the FTT” [29]
10. I remind myself of the following principles taken from Volpi & Anor v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464:
i. an appeal court should not interfere with the trial judge’s conclusions on primary facts unless it is satisfied that he was plainly wrong.

ii. as an appellate court, the Upper Tribunal it is bound, unless there is compelling reason to the contrary, to assume that the FtT has taken the whole of the evidence into his consideration. The mere fact that the FtT does not mention a specific piece of evidence does not mean that he overlooked it.

iii. Reasons will always be capable of having been better expressed. An appellate court should not subject a judgment to narrow textual analysis. Nor should it be picked over or construed as though it was a piece of legislation or a contract.
Ground 1
11. Mr Holmes submitted that the FtT has not grappled with the evidence of the Appellant at [26] of his witness statement when coming to the finding that “I do not find it reasonably likely that the Appellant would be found in Dominica. I do not believe that a mafia like gang in Iraq would be alerted to the family’s arrival there or that they would travel, effectively, across the world to find him.” [16]
12. Paragraph 26 of the Appellant’s witness statement provides as follows:
“Having a passport from Dominica and having an opportunity to go there is something I have thought about a great deal since my claim was refused. I cannot go to Dominica as those people who want to harm me know I have a Dominican passport and they can harm me in Dominica. Those people have been following me and observing me for a long time, they know so much about me. When I applied for the Dominican passport someone from the Mukhabarat (Intelligence) called Kamran said that these people are aware you are trying to apply for a Dominican passport. Kamran actually worked for intelligence and I am very sure these people know I have (sic) Dominican passport. They have been to my family since I left and they have said to my family even if I go to Dominica they would go there and find me. I haven't told anyone I am in the UK, instead I have said I am in Germany”
13. I remind myself of the principle that as an appellate court, the Upper Tribunal should, unless there is compelling reason to the contrary, assume that the FtT has taken the whole of the evidence into consideration. In my view, far from there being compelling evidence to the contrary, the reasons expressed in the Decision demonstrate that the FtT has taken [26] of the Appellant’s witness statement into account. At [12] the FtT accepts that Dominica is a small country of only 750km², with a population of 72,400 and then goes on to expressly consider the Appellant’s assertion that he could be followed to Dominica [16]. Whilst the Appellant may hold that subjective fear for the reasons he sets out at [26], the FtT was entitled to find that the fear was not objectively well-founded on the basis, as stated, that it had not been shown that those the Appellant fears would (i) be alerted to the Appellant’s arrival in Dominica and (ii) travel across the world to find him. As Mr Wain pointed out, it is not suggested that that the FtT was taken to any background information about the reach of the “mafia like gang” and the submissions at [27] of the Appeal Skeleton Argument on the issue of return to Dominica were very limited indeed:
“The Appellant asserts that neither he nor his family will be safe if they are returned to the Commonwealth of Dominica. According to the BBC the island is 750 square meters in size and it has a population of only 72,400. It is submitted that the Appellant and his family could easily and readily be detected within such a small island nation.”
14. Despite the helpful submissions of Mr Holmes, having considered the Grounds of Appeal and the Decision and evidence, I find that there is no error of law in the approach of the FtT as contended for in Ground 1.
Ground 2
15. Mr Holmes began his submissions under this Ground by making two points:
(i) that the reference to Article 1C(3) of the Refugee Convention at [17] of the Decision was incorrect because that provision applied to cessation, not applicable on the facts of this appeal. Rather, he submitted that the appropriate Article was 1A(2). Mr Holmes accepted that this was not an error that was material to the overall Decision;

(ii) the FtT has applied a test of reasonableness to the question of whether the Appellant and his family could live in Dominica. There is no authority in support of that being the threshold test when dealing with return to a safe country and the Grounds of Appeal, as drafted, fall into the same error.
16. First of all, Mr Holmes made no application to amend the Grounds of Appeal which as drafted make no reference to either of the two points above.
17. Secondly, taking the points at their highest and having heard from Mr Wain, I find that they do not avail Mr Holmes for the following reasons:
(i) the reference to the incorrect provision of the Refugee Convention is not material to the over Decision. That is because Article 1A(2), which as Mr Holmes accepts on the FtT’s findings does apply, provides that:
“In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term “the country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one
of the countries of which he is a national”

(ii) in respect of the second point, I agree with Mr Wain that once the FtT had found that Dominica was a safe country of which the Appellant was a national, the analysis stopped there for the purposes of Article 1A(2): there is no ‘reasonableness’ analysis as would be carried out in respect of an internal flight alternative (see Januzi v SSHD [2006] UKHL 5) where consideration is given to relocation internally within the same country and where risk is localised. Although at [17] the FtT refers to it not being unreasonable for the Appellant to relocate to Dominica that is not, I find, the primary finding. The primary finding is that, as the FtT goes on to state at [17], “There would be no real risk to him or his family there.”
18. Further in respect of Ground 2, Mr Holmes advanced the point made in the Grounds of Appeal [14] that there has been inadequate consideration of the position of the Appellant’s children (particularly his eldest daughter VM) when considering their return to Dominica. For the reasons set out above, however, I do not consider that the FtT was required to undertake a ‘reasonableness’ analysis and the FtT expressly found, for sustainable and adequate reasons, that there was no risk to the Appellant “or his family” in Dominica.
19. Even were there to be a requirement on the FtT to consider, in addition to the safety of the Appellant and his wife and children in Dominica, the reasonableness of their return to that country, the Decision when read as a whole makes clear that the FtT has found and taken account of the fact that:
a. Whilst the family have not been to Dominica before, they has also not previously been to the United Kingdom [12]
b. there is a small but existing Muslim population in Dominica [12]
c. there was no evidence to suggest that the Appellant’s children would not receive an education in Dominica [12]
d. There may be an earthquake risk, and the hurricane season lasts for six months of the year, but the Worldsupporter report which was provided by the Appellant’s representatives bundle states that the country has developed good healthcare policies in several areas such as mental health and disaster management [12]
e. The Appellant’s eldest daughter VM has been attending counselling appointments on a weekly basis which began on 9th August 2025 and which continue. Reference is made in the evidence to the possibility that VM was being bullied at school in the United Kingdom but there was no more detail about that [22]
f. The background evidence reveals that the Dominica healthcare system is a combination of public and private medical services, which predominantly emphasize public care for the general population. The government provides free primary healthcare for its citizen [13]
g. Public healthcare is free for residents and foreigners with legal residency. The background evidence goes on to explain that there are “plenty” of general practitioners in both private and public clinics and hospitals [13]
20. The Grounds of Appeal as drafted amount to no more than a disagreement with those findings of fact.
21. I return to the FtT’s consideration of the best interests of the Appellant’s children under my discussion of Ground 3 below.
22. Again, despite the submissions of Mr Holmes, having considered the Grounds of Appeal and the Decision, I find that there is no material error of law in the approach of the FtT as contended for in Ground 2.
Ground 3
23. The Supreme Court in CAO [2024] UKSC 32 held that:
“63. Since the FTT is obliged by article 8 and section 6 of the HRA to treat the best interests of a child who is affected by its decision as a primary consideration, its decision- making will in practical terms cover the matters to which section 55 is directed.”
24. I remind myself that it is necessary to read the Decision as a whole. In addition to the findings that I set out at [19] above, the FtT has made the following further findings of fact:
(i) “Medical records were also provided for the Appellant’s wife and their daughter JM who was born 1 October 2015, but I was not directed to anything specifically therein during closing submissions. Indeed, there was evidence which described JM as “thriving at school”.” [22]

(ii) “I have already set out the evidence which shows that adequate healthcare is available in Dominica” [22]
25. In respect of where the best interests of the Appellant’s children lie, I find it demonstrably clear that the FtT has throughout the Decision considered and made findings upon all matters relevant to where the best interests of the Appellant’s children lie, before coming to the ultimate conclusion that “the best interests of the children will be served by remaining with their parents” [23]. The FtT has had specific regard to the evidence before the Tribunal that VM was undergoing counselling and finds that adequate healthcare exists in Dominica [13&14]. That the evidence was considered and findings made in the context of the appeals under Article 3 ECHR and the Refugee Convention is not to the point. Having made the relevant findings throughout the Decision, it was not necessary for the FtT to repeat those findings again when drawing the conclusion under Article 8 ECHR that the best interests of the children will be served by remaining with their parents, in the context of the unassailable finding that the family can safely return to Dominica.
26. For the reasons set out above, Ground 3 does not succeed.
Conclusion
27. The Decision of the FtT must be read as a whole. For the reasons that I set out above the Grounds of Appeal do not (whether considered singly or cumulatively) demonstrate that the Decision of the FtT involved the making of a material error of law.
Notice of Decision
The Decision of the FtT did not involve the making of a material error of law and shall stand.

Roxanne Frantzis

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

7th May 2026