Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000193
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/01687/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 14th of May 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COLE

Between

RA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms B Hashmi, Solicitor, Mamoon Solicitors
For the Respondent: Dr S Ibisi, Senior Presenting Officer.

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 8 May 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 is a citizen of Iraq. He arrived in the UK on 17 February 2020 and claimed asylum. His protection claim was refused, and his appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was dismissed by decision dated 5 May 2022.
2. The appellant made further submissions on 20 December 2023. These were refused and the appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. His appeal was dismissed in a decision promulgated 6 September 2024. This decision was set aside by the Upper Tribunal in a decision dated 7 April 2025. The appeal was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing.
3. The appellant’s remitted appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal in a decision dated 20 November 2025. The appellant now appeals to the Upper Tribunal.
Background
4. The appellant is an Iraqi citizen of Kurdish ethnicity. He was originally from Kandinawa in Nineveh governorate, but more recently lived in Erbil in the IKR. The appellant claimed that he worked for the Protocol Department of the PUK in Erbil. The appellant claimed that he was critical of the KDP which led to him becoming of adverse interest to the KDP intelligence services. Since his arrival the appellant has posted social media content critical of the IKR authorities and attended demonstrations against the KRG.
5. The respondent refused the protection claim and appellant’s appeal was dismissed by Judge Jarvis who did not accept that the appellant’s claims were credible.
6. The appellant then made further submissions, relying on his initial claim but also providing further evidence of sur place political activities.
7. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. The appeal was eventually heard by Judge Thorne on 28 October 2025. Judge Thorne dismissed the appellant’s appeal.
8. The appellant submitted grounds of challenge, and First-tier Tribunal, Judge Barker granted permission on the following terms:
1. The application is in time.
2. The grounds disclose arguable errors of law in the First-tier Tribunal Judge’s decision.
3. Grounds 1, 2 & 5 – psychiatric evidence since the previous decision:
It is arguable that the Judge failed to properly consider the new psychiatric evidence and in particular, the impact that this had on the appellant’s ability to give full and consistent evidence.
Similarly, it is arguable that the judge provided insufficient and inadequate reasons for his findings in relation to the new psychiatric evidence.
4. Ground 3 & 4 – misunderstanding the appellant’s claim:
It is arguable that in setting out the appellant’s claim in the way that the Judge did, the Judge failed to understand the appellant’s claim and instead proceeded on the respondent’s understanding of the appellant’s claim.
5. Ground 6 – failed to deal with documentary evidence:
It is arguable that the Judge failed to properly assess this evidence, and in any event, it is arguable that the Judge failed to provide adequate reasons for his findings.
6. (There is no Ground 7).
7. Ground 8 – reference to decision of FtTJ Williams:
It is arguable when referring to previous decisions in the plural, that the Judge took into account a previous decision that had been set aside in its entirety.
8. Ground 9 – erred in finding no genuine and subsisting relationship with a partner in the UK:
It is arguable that the Judge failed to take into account the reasons for the absence of the appellant’s partner at the hearing.
9. Ground 10 – absence of a fair hearing:
Whilst alone, this ground may be less persuasive than the others, given the above arguable errors, I do not restrict permission to appeal.
10. Permission to appeal is granted on all grounds.
9. Thus, the matter came before me to determine whether Judge Thorne’s decision involved the making of an error on a point of law.
The Hearing
10. The parties had discussions prior to the start of the hearing. This meant that I only needed to hear from Dr Ibisi on the issue as to whether the Judge’s decision contained material errors of law.
11. Dr Ibisi confirmed that the respondent conceded that there were material errors of law in the decision of Judge Thorne such that the decision should be set aside.
12. Specifically, Dr Ibisi confirmed that there was insufficient reasoning by the Judge in relation to the new psychiatric evidence and that the Judge had failed to deal adequately with the new evidence of sur place activity, particularly the letter from Dakok. The respondent’s concession related to Grounds 1, 2 and 5 (the psychiatric evidence issue) and Ground 6 (the sur place evidence issue), as identified in the grant of permission.
13. There was no need to hear from Ms Hashmi on the issue of material error of law.
14. I informed the parties that in my judgment the Grounds 1, 2, 5 and 6 were made out and thus the decision of Judge Thorne contained material errors of law such that it must be set aside.
15. There was then a discussion regarding disposal. Dr Ibisi submitted that the appeal should be retained in the Upper Tribunal for remaking as the Upper Tribunal had all the evidence to make a new decision. Ms Hashmi rather surprisingly requested that the appeal be reheard in the Upper Tribunal today. She stated that the appellant and his partner had attended the hearing and she was instructed that they wished to proceed today.
16. I was not willing to agree to the appeal being reheard today. No interpreter had been booked for the taking of evidence from the appellant (I reject Ms Hashmi’s suggestion that the appellant could manage in English; the appellant had always given evidence through an interpreter). Furthermore, the appellant’s consolidated hearing bundle of some 1163 pages had only been received on the morning of the hearing (Ms Hashmi indicated that it had been uploaded to CE-File previously, but it was not visible on the system; also, Ms Hashmi accepted that it had not previously been served on the respondent). Dr Ibisi would require several hours to consider the bundle and prepare for cross-examination of the appellant and his partner.
17. Therefore, I declined to remake the decision in the Upper Tribunal today. I informed the parties that I would carefully consider disposal and confirm this in my written decision.
Discussion and Analysis
18. As the respondent conceded that the ground identified a material error of law and agreed that the Judge’s decision must be set aside in its entirety my reasons will be brief.
19. I agree with the respondent that the Judge’s consideration of the totality of the psychiatric evidence, both in relation to the protection claim and the human rights claim, was insufficient. There were two psychiatric reports and Dr Waheed, Consultant Psychiatrist, gave oral evidence before Judge Thorne. The Judge failed to adequately engage with this evidence and failed to give adequate reasons for his findings regarding the psychiatric evidence.
20. The Judge considered the psychiatric evidence in relation to the protection claim in paragraph 29 of his decision. The reasoning in this paragraph does not adequately address the issues raised. The Judge did not consider the psychiatric evidence in relation to Article 8. At paragraph 63(f) of his decision the Judge merely stated, “There is no evidence to suggest that A has any medical problems that cannot be treated in Iraq.” This fails to adequately engage with the psychiatric evidence.
21. The appellant primarily relied upon his sur place political activity and the key piece of evidence was the letter of support from Dakok. The Judge’s considers this letter at paragraph 32 of his decision. I agree with the respondent that there is a failure to adequately consider this crucial evidence.
22. The Dakok evidence is key to the appellant's claim to have been politically active in the UK such that he would be at real risk on return to Iraq. The Judge’s reasons for rejecting this evidence are wholly inadequate.
23. Considering the concessions made by the respondent, with which I agree with, I find that the decision of the Judge disclosed material errors of law and must be set aside in entirety.
24. I have carefully considered the issue of disposal. There is a significant amount of fact-finding to be undertaken. There will be oral evidence from the appellant and probably his partner. There may be oral evidence from Dr Waheed and from a leader at Dakok. There is considerable dispute about all the evidence. The focus of this appeal relates to matters in the UK, the appellant’s sur place political activity and his relationship with his partner, and so comprehensive up-to-date evidence is required.
25. Thus, applying the guidance in paragraph 7 of the Senior President's Practice Statement and AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC), given the issues and the amount of fact-finding that will be required to do, I am satisfied that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
The First-tier Tribunal has been shown to have made an error of law material to the decision to dismiss the appeal. The determination is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal, Manchester for a de novo hearing before any judge other than Judges O Williams and Thorne.

C R Cole
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

11 May 2026