An Iraqi asylum seeker was allowed to stay in the country after the judge presiding over the asylum application appeared to confuse his home country with Iran. The unnamed man won his case after the judge presiding over it delivered a ruling based on guidance for Iran and Turkey.
Judge Helena Suffield-Thompson was assessing whether the applicant’s criticism of the Iraqi-government meant that his life was in danger if he was to be deported. He argued that his activity on Facebook would put him at risk of persecution should he return to the country. Judge Suffield-Thompson found in his favour, pointing to the “sophisticated” capabilities of authorities to monitor cyber communications.
However a new tribunal has found that she “erred in law” as the risks that she noted related to Iran, not Iraq who is not known to monitor social media accounts in the same way.
The man had his first application rejected in 2019 but appealed the decision, claiming that in 2022 that “he campaigned against the Kurdish leadership in the UK,” and expressed views that would mean “he would be at risk of persecution on return as a result.”
On this occasion, Judge Suffield-Thompson found in his favour, claiming that: “he was at risk from the Kurdish leadership as he had exposed their corrupt practices and behaviour.”
The decision was appealed by the Home Office who said: “The grounds of appeal assert that the judge had materially erred by relying on the factual findings of Country Guidance decisions that did not relate to the country situation in Iraq and instead either related to Turkey or Iran.
“It is submitted that the findings of fact in relation to risk on return are based on country guidance that is not applicable to Iraq.”
As a result of the alleged error, the whole process was started from the beginning. At the latest appeal, the man’s lawyer argued against the Home Office’s claim that the case should be reheard.
After hearing the appeal, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Lucy Murray ruled that there was an error in law, ordering that the case be returned to the first stage of the process to be reheard.
Judge Murray said: “It is unclear whether [Judge Suffield-Thompson] mistakenly thought that [Iranian case law] was in fact Iraqi country guidance case law. The case reference is incorrectly cited by her… and omits the word ‘Iran’.
“However, and in any event, there is neither case law in relation to Iraq nor… was there any background evidence before her to support the findings in relation to the ‘various sophisticated means’ of the Iraqi authorities to monitor activities of demonstrators and social media users abroad.
“In the circumstances, I conclude that assessment of the risk on return due to his activities was based on country guidance that did not relate to Iraq.”