PETITION BY HMH AGAINST SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, an Iraqi citizen of Kurdish ethnicity, arrived in the United Kingdom in May 2019 and claimed asylum based on a well-founded fear of persecution due to a blood feud. The Appellant alleged he was falsely accused of killing his maternal cousin who disappeared during a trip to Iran, resulting in death threats from the cousin's family. He claimed inability to seek protection from authorities in Iraq and recounted a journey through Turkey, Bosnia, Italy, and France to the UK, including the confiscation of his passport in Bosnia. The Appellant lacked identity documents necessary to live and work in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.

The Respondent rejected the asylum claim on 7 November 2019, and the First-tier Tribunal ("FtT") refused the appeal on 1 May 2020, finding the Appellant's evidence not credible due to inconsistencies, failure to report threats to authorities, and other factors. The FtT judge also concluded that the Appellant could safely relocate within Iraq. The Upper Tribunal ("UT") refused permission to appeal, holding that no error of law was disclosed and that the grounds of appeal were attempts to re-argue factual matters.

The Appellant sought judicial review of the UT's refusal, challenging the adequacy of the UT's and FtT's reasoning. The Lord Ordinary refused permission to proceed, finding no arguable error of law. This appeal under section 27D(2) of the Court of Session Act 1988 challenges that refusal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Upper Tribunal erred in law by refusing permission to appeal the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
2. Whether the First-tier Tribunal made errors of law in its assessment of the Appellant's credibility and consideration of country information.
3. Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in its conclusion regarding the Appellant's ability to relocate safely within Iraq.
4. Whether the Appellant's grounds for judicial review disclose legally compelling reasons to proceed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The UT failed to recognise arguable errors of law by the FtT, which improperly treated factual disputes as conclusive without adequate legal analysis.
• The FtT inadequately assessed and considered relevant country information, including explanations for the Appellant's failure to notify Iranian and Iraqi authorities, as supported by established country guidance.
• The Appellant's account of reasons for leaving Iraq was not inconsistent; references to social problems and blood feuds were compatible and improperly discounted.
• The FtT erred in its conclusion on relocation risk, disregarding that obtaining new identification documents in Iraq would expose the Appellant to risk.
• The grounds for judicial review were strongly arguable and of serious consequence, warranting permission to proceed.

Respondent's Arguments

• The UT correctly applied established legal principles, including the guidance that factual disagreements do not amount to legal errors.
• The FtT was entitled to assess inconsistencies in the Appellant's account and give them appropriate weight in credibility findings.
• The country information cited by the Appellant was either irrelevant or did not support his claims, particularly as the dispute concerned family rather than intertribal matters.
• The FtT reasonably rejected the Appellant's evidence on lack of identification and concluded relocation was safe; the cited country guidance did not undermine this conclusion.
• The Appellant did not meet the high threshold for permission to appeal or judicial review under the Court of Session Act 1988.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused on whether the UT erred in law in refusing permission to appeal the FtT decision. It noted the UT's role in identifying material legal errors in the FtT's reasoning. The court reviewed the Appellant's inconsistent accounts, noting the FtT judge was entitled to treat these inconsistencies as central to credibility assessment.

The court examined the relevance and application of country information. It found that the FtT judge properly considered the country information in light of the evidence and explanations provided by the Appellant, and was entitled to question the Appellant's failure to seek protection from authorities over a prolonged period.

The court agreed with the Respondent that the country guidance cited by the Appellant was either irrelevant or did not support the claim, particularly the Home Office note on blood feuds which concerned intertribal disputes rather than internal family matters.

Regarding relocation, the court accepted the FtT judge’s rejection of the Appellant’s evidence on lack of access to identity documents and concluded that the judge’s findings were reasonable and open on the evidence.

The court emphasized that the UT correctly concluded no arguable error of law was disclosed and that the Appellant's grounds largely sought to re-argue factual matters. The court held that the threshold for permission to proceed with judicial review was not met.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the appeal, upholding the UT’s refusal to grant permission to appeal and the Lord Ordinary's refusal to allow judicial review to proceed.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s asylum claim rejection and related tribunal decisions remain final. No new legal precedent was established, and the decision reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with tribunal findings of fact absent clear legal error. The case underscores the high threshold for permission to appeal or judicial review in immigration matters where the core disputes are factual.