Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-003411
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/73977/2024

Hybrid hearing

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 8th of October 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN

Between

Mr AS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
v

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms J. Heybroek, counsel instructed by Barnes, Harrild & Dyer Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr E. Tufan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 9 September 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the appellant] (and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified) 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 (and/or other person). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant is a national of Iraq, born on 20.1.97. He arrived in the UK on 12 November 2022 and claimed asylum 2 days later on the basis that he was a supporter of the New Generation Movement [NGM] since early 2021 and that, following a protest on 17 April 2021, he had been arrested, beaten and detained for 9 days. On 27 September 2022 he gathered a group of friends in a local park to discuss the NGM and he was informed that his shop and home had been raided by the authorities. He went to stay with his paternal uncle in Sulaymaniyah, who organised for him to leave the country.

2. The Appellant’s protection application was refused in a decision dated 17 October 2024. He appealed against this decision and his appeal came before a First tier Tribunal Judge for hearing on 14 March 2026. In a decision promulgated on 15 March 2026 his appeal was dismissed.

3. The grounds of appeal dated 24 April 2026 in support of an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal asserted that:

(i) the Judge at [24] made an error of fact, made irrational findings and failed to consider relevant evidence when assessing the Appellant’s account of being arrested and tortured;

(ii) procedural unfairness in that the finding at [24] was not put to the Appellant;

(iii) error of fact, misapplication of caselaw and failure to consider relevant evidence, including that Dr Fatah’s findings in AK may not have been properly considered and applied to the facts.

4. Permission to appeal was granted by a judge of the First tier Tribunal on 24 June 2026.

5. Materially, on 29 June 2926, the country guidance decision in AH, AK & AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI) Iraq CG [2026] UKUT 00150 (IAC) was set aside.

Hearing

6. At the hearing before the Upper Tribunal, Ms Heybroek appeared remotely, along with the Appellant whereas Mr Tufan and I were present in Field House. No party had any objection to appearing in a hybrid hearing.

7. Mr Tufan helpfully accepted that the judge had failed to refer to NABA 2022 and it was not clear what standard of proof he applied. He also accepted that there was an error in relation to Ground 3 of the grounds of appeal in relation to the judge’s reliance on AK (op cit) which had since been withdrawn. Mr Tufan considered that the decision should be set aside and remitted back to the First tier Tribunal with no findings preserved.

Findings and reasons

8. I accepted Mr Tufan’s helpful concession and informed the parties that I was satisfied the decision could not stand, with reasons to follow in writing.

9. I further find that Ground 1 of the grounds of challenge was also made out in that the judge at [24] failed, when making an adverse credibility finding in relation to the Appellant’s account of being beaten and tortured in that he did not refer to this in his first asylum interview, to take account of the fact that the Appellant did refer to this in his written statement provided the day prior to this interview: see [5] of that statement and also his initial asylum interview of 17.11.22.

Notice of Decision

10. There are material errors of law in the decision and reasons of First tier Tribunal Judge Zindi. I set that decision aside and remit the appeal for a hearing before the First tier Tribunal, with no findings preserved.

Rebecca Chapman

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Chapman

24 September 2026