Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2023-09-22, UI-2023-000266
| Appeal Number | UI-2023-000266 |
| Hearing Date | 04 September 2023 |
| Date | 22 September 2023 |
| Published date | 11 October 2023 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
Appeal Case Number: UI-2023-000266 PA/55070/2021
|
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER |
Case No.: UI-2023-000266
|
|
|
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/55070/2021
|
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 22nd of September 2023
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MONSON
Between
ROM (IRAQ)
Appellant
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Malik, Counsel instructed by Hanson Law Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Alain Tan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Heard at Field House on 4 September 2023
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
-
The appellant appeals to the Upper Tribunal from the decision of First-tier Tribunal Eliott promulgated on 21 December 2022 (“the Decision”). By the Decision, Judge Elliott dismissed the appellant’s second appeal against the refusal of asylum, his previous appeal against the refusal of asylum having been dismissed on 22 July 2005.
Relevant Background
-
The appellant originates from the autonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq (now known as the “KRI” or “IKR”). The appellant is recorded as having claimed asylum on 30 March 2005. He claimed that he had been forced to flee from his home area as a result of a blood feud between his family and the family of a PUK leader, and that he could not reside safely in any part of the Kurdish autonomous zone (“KAZ”).
-
The appellant’s asylum claim was refused on 5 May 2005 and his appeal against the decision was dismissed on 22 July 2005. The Judge found that the appellant was not credible. He had not been able to satisfactorily explain the discrepancies in his various statements in relation to the core aspect of his claim. The Judge also found that as the appellant was not a member of any political party, there was no reason why he should be persecuted by any of the political parties on return to the KAZ.
-
The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted on 10 August 2005. The appellant made various applications over the ensuing years, all of which were refused or rejected.
-
On 10 January 2020 the appellant made further submissions in support of a fresh asylum claim. He claimed that he could not return to the KRI on account of his political opinion. He was a member of the New Generation Movement (“NGM”), and his membership of the NGM would place him at risk of persecution from the state and the PUK on return. His sur place political activities would also place him at risk on return. In support of his claim, he provided (among other things) a NGM letter dated 5 January 2020 signed by Arian Taugozi, and copies of Facebook posts made in 2019 with translations made on 9 January 2020.
-
In the reasons for refusal dated 24 September 2021, the respondent relied extensively on the June 2021 CPIN on the topic of opposition to the Kurdish Regional Government (“KRG”), including the following passage at 2.4.8:
“The evidence is not such that the person will be at risk of serious harm or persecution simply by being an opponent of, or having played a low-level part in protests against the KRG. Despite evidence that opponents to the KRG have been arrested, detained, assaulted and even killed by the Kurdistan authorities, there is no evidence to suggest that such mistreatment is systematic. In general, a person will not be at risk of serious harm or persecution on the basis of political activity within the KRI.”
-
The respondent said that, as he had not evidenced that he had taken part in sur place protests in the UK for the NGM, it was therefore considered that he would not participate in NGM activities return. For that reason, his membership of the NGM would not place him at risk on return to the KRI.
The Hearing Before, and the Decision of, the First-tier Tribunal
-
The appellant’s appeal came before Judge Elliott sitting in the First-tier Tribunal at Birmingham on 10 October 2022. Both parties were legally represented, with Mr Ahmed of Hanson Law Solicitors appearing on behalf of the appellant.
-
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Khan (the Presenting Officer) confirmed that it was accepted that the appellant had arrived in the UK in 2005, and not in 2002 as stated in the decision letter. He also confirmed that all CSA offices, other than those in Nineveh Governate, had now moved to issuing INIDs in place of CSIDs. It was accepted that the appellant came from Ranya in Sulaymaniyah Governate. Mr Khan also confirmed that, as a result of an agreement between the British and Iraqi Governments, involuntary returnees who originated from the IKR were now returnable directly to the IKR.
-
The Judge heard oral evidence from the appellant, who gave his evidence through a Kurdish Sorani Interpreter. The Judge also heard evidence from Mr Klak Ali Ahmad, a friend of the appellant, who said that he had visited the KRI where he had made enquiries regarding the whereabouts of the appellant’s family.
-
In paras [45] to [48], the Judge gave his reasons for dismissing the appellant’s appeal in respect of his claimed fear of being a victim of a blood feud.
-
The Judge’s findings on the appellant’s fresh claim began at para [49]. He held that the NGM was an Iraqi Kurdish political party that was founded in 2017 to contest the 2018 general election. It had anti-corruption, Liberal and social policies. It had gained seats in the KRI Parliament in the two elections fought in 2018, and again in 2021, and it was currently holding nine seats.
-
The Judge noted that the appellant had produced a letter from the NGM Foreign Affairs Office dated 5 January 2020, which stated that the appellant had joined the NGM in the UK on 2 February 2019, and that he was active in his political activities in opposing the authorities in the IKR and Iraq. The letter was signed by Arian Taugozi. However, the Judge observed that the appellant said in evidence that he did not know who Mr Taugozi was. He said that he had not met him, and he had received a letter through Facebook.
-
At paragraph [52], the Judge held that the appellant had no political profile at all in Iraq - or at least there was no evidence that he ever participated in politics there. At the time of his appeal before Judge Juss, there was no suggestion that he had become involved in any political activity in the UK. The letter from the NGM showed that the appellant only became a member in February 2019, which was well after his appeal rights had become exhausted, and less than a year prior to the submission of his representations. Whilst the appellant said in his witness statement what the broad aims of the NGM were, he had not explained how or why he became involved with the party, or what had caused his sudden interest in politics. The Judge found that this was indicative of someone who was not a genuine political supporter, but who had sought to create a political profile for himself in order to bolster his original asylum claim.
-
At [53], the Judge acknowledged that even if undertaken for opportunistic reasons, sur place activity might still lead to a real risk of being persecuted. At paragraph [55] he observed that translations of the Facebook entries referred to 3 posts from 2016 and one in February 2018. None appear to relate specifically to the NGM. The remainder of the posts (the latest of which was dated 23 December 2019) were untranslated. At para [56], the Judge said that all the photographs produced by the appellant appeared to be of publicly reported events. None were specific to him. There were no photographs of him attending any demonstrations - nor was there any direct criticism of individual members of the Government of either the IKR or Iraq. Significantly, he found the appellant had not identified himself as a member of the NGM. In oral evidence, the appellant confirmed that he had never attended any demonstrations in support of the NGM, or against the Governments of Iraq of the KRI.
-
At paragraph [57], the Judge noted that the appellant’s Facebook profile showed that he had 173 friends. His most recent post, which appeared to refer to demonstrations in Iraq and dated from 2019, had not been commented upon or liked by anyone. Some of his earlier posts had been viewed and liked, but only by some 9 or 10 people.
The Judge went on to refer to some of the background evidence provided in the appellant’s bundle, and also to the CPIN cited by the respondent in the refusal decision. In paragraph [63], the Judge found that the appellant did not have a high or significant political profile. He had none while living in the KRI, and his activities in the UK post-dated his appeal rights being exhausted and shortly pre-dated the submission of his further claim. Even accepting that he was a member of the NGM, there was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial