Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-004273
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/79723/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 19 October 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DOYLE

Between

RA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr H Siddique of Adam Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr A Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House, on 13 October 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. I make an anonymity direction because this appeal arises from the appellant’s protection claim.
2. This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Rea, dated 14/06/2026, which dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on all grounds.
Background
3. The Appellant is a citizen of Iraq. He claimed asylum in the UK on 11/07/2023. The Respondent refused the Appellant’s application on 08/10/2024.
The Judge’s Decision
4. The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. On 14/06/2026 First-tier Tribunal Judge Rea (“the Judge”) dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.
5. The Appellant lodged grounds of appeal, and, on 03/08/2026, First-tier Tribunal Judge Sachdev granted permission to appeal. He said
2. The grounds assert that the Judge materially erred in law by failing to consider documentary and social media evidence relied upon by the appellant concerning the individual said to be feared, Ghafour Hoemesyari, and his alleged influence.
3. It is arguable that the Judge stated at paragraph 21 that no information had been provided about that individual, whereas the appellant’s bundle appears to have contained material directed to the Hoemesyari tribe and translated social media material relating to Mam Ghafoor. The respondent’s review also engaged with that evidence, albeit disputing its weight and significance.
4. It is arguable that the Judge either overlooked that evidence or failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting it. Given that the alleged influence of the feared individual was relevant to credibility, risk on return, sufficiency of protection and internal relocation, the asserted error is arguably material.
5. I therefore grant permission to appeal on all grounds. The anonymity order made by the Tribunal remains in place.
The Hearing
6. (a) For the appellant, Mr Siddique moved the grounds of appeal. He said that the Judge's error was in the credibility assessment and that that error arose from the failure of the tribunal to take account of the appellant’s documentary evidence (Now found between documents 30 and 42 of the Upper Tribunal bundle)
(b) Mr Siddique took me to [21] of the decision. There, the Judge deals with the profile of the appellant's claimed persecutor. Mr Siddique told me that there was important evidence about the connection the agent of persecution has to the authorities and the peshmerga. He said that the Judge had ignored background evidence about the tribe the agents of persecution belong to.
(c) Mr Siddique said that [16] to [23] of the decision contains the core credibility assessment. There (Mr Siddique said) the Judge borrowed from the respondent's reasons for refusal letter. He said that the Judge's credibility assessment simply mirrored paragraph 24 of the respondent's reasons for refusal letter without considering the supporting evidence about tribal influences and the profile of the agents of persecution.
(d) Mr Siddique referred to the transcript of asylum interview. He told me that the Judge should have taken account of the evidence contained between questions 69 to 75, and considered those answers in the light of the background materials.
(e) Mr Siddique described the Judge's approach to credibility as “measured”, but said a material error of law was made because inadequate weight was given to the background materials. Mr Siddique said that a fair reading of the Judge's decision discloses that the Judge found that the appellant gives an account which is consistent, but that consistency was not reflected in the Judge's credibility assessment.
(f) Mr Siddique asked me to set the decision aside and remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal to be determined of new.
(g) For the respondent, Mr Mullen opposed the appeal. He said that the decision does not contain an error of law. Mr Mullen said that the Judge found that there is no evidence about the influence of the claimed agent of persecution. He said that what is referred to as “important background evidence” has little real evidential value and adds almost nothing to the appellant's case.
(h) Mr Mullen told me that the Judge considered all of the evidence and found that the evidence about the agent of persecution is of no great significance. He urged me to allow the decision to stand and to dismiss the appeal.
Analysis
7. The appellant is an Iraqi Kurd. He claims to fear persecution because of a blood feud. The central plank of the appellant's appeal is found in the first paragraph of the application for permission to appeal. There the appellant's position is succinctly put:
The central error arises from the Judge’s treatment of the documentary evidence concerning the individual whom the Appellant fears. At paragraph 21 the Judge concluded that if the individual held an influential position within the PUK it would be reasonable to expect information about him to be available and stated “No such information has been provided by the appellant.” The Appellant’s bundle contained documentary material relating to the Hormzair tribe together with documentary and social media evidence relating to Mam Ghafoor. The evidence was adduced precisely because the Respondent disputed the existence and influence of the individual identified by the Appellant. The decision contains no analysis whatsoever of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Appellant.
8. Between pages 18 to 23 of the appellant’s bundle (before the First-tier Tribunal) there were documents entitled Hormzair tribes & Descendants of several their families. Pages 24 to 30 of the appellant’s bundle (before the First-tier Tribunal) were documents entitled Appellant’s social media posts regarding President Mam Ghafoor (translated)
9. The Judge’s findings start at [13] of the decision. The Judge summarises the appellant's claim and then, at [16], starts to consider sufficiency of detail. From [20] of the decision the Judge considers internal and external consistency. The Judge considers plausibility, and takes account of Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 before reaching his conclusion.
10. It is true that the Judge makes no reference to pages 18 to 30 of the appellant's bundle. I have considered pages 18 to 30 of the appellants bundle and what I see there is a list of names collated into a genealogy or family tree, and some extracts of WhatsApp messages. It is argued for the appellant that pages 18 to 30 of the appellant's bundle amount to valuable evidence about the sphere of influence and power of the agents of persecution. From my reading of those documents, I cannot understand why the appellant interprets them as clear, important, evidence of the influence and power of the agents of persecution. The documents are an unexplained list of names and some almost impenetrable WhatsApp messages.
11. The Judge did not mention the evidence contained between pages 18 and 30 of the appellant's bundle because, at best, those documents are evidentially neutral. They do not advance the appellant's claim. The appellant's appeal turned on the question of credibility which is a matter for the Judge at first instance. The Judge explained why he found that the appellant has not given a credible account of the circumstances which led him to leave Iraq.
12. What if both the First-tier Judge and I are wrong. What if the Judge's decision is tainted by an error of law because documentary evidence was not considered. The question would become whether or not that error is a material error of law. What difference would considering and discussing the documentary evidence make?
13. If the decision does contain an error of law, I find it is not material because I cannot see that the documentary evidence between pages 18 and 30 of the appellant’s bundle was either reliable or relevant. Pages 18 to 30 of the appellant’s bundle contain unexplained documents which do not go to the central issues in the appellant appeal.
14. The decision does not contain a material error of law. The Judge’s decision stands.

DECISION
The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 14 June 2026 stands.

Signed Paul Doyle Date 17 October 2026
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Doyle