Summary of Opinion — Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 9 June 2026

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant is an Iranian national of Kurdish ethnicity who arrived in the United Kingdom on 26 September 2021 and claimed asylum on 29 September 2021. The Respondent refused the asylum claim on 5 May 2023 (the Decision). The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) ('the F-tT'), which dismissed the appeal in determination 1, disbelieving the Appellant's account of activities in Iran and finding that his sur place activities in the UK did not create a real risk of persecution on return. The Appellant obtained permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal ('the UT') on three grounds; the UT dismissed that appeal in determination 2. The Appellant then obtained permission from Judge Edis to bring two grounds (labelled 1A and 2A) to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was heard before Judge Moylan, Judge Lewis and Judge Laing. Attorneys for the Appellant were Attorney Berry and Attorney Sellwood (instructed by Company A). The Respondent was represented by Attorney Thomann (instructed by Company B). The hearing took place in The City on 21 May 2026, and the judgment was handed down remotely on 9 June 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the F-tT materially erred in law in determination 1 in concluding there was not a real risk of persecution on return (the core issue identified by the court).
2. Whether the F-tT erred in law by failing to make a factual finding as to whether the Appellant had been photographed at demonstrations outside the Iranian Embassy (Ground 1A).
3. Whether the F-tT erred in law in its assessment of the risks arising from questioning on return to Iran, including the alleged dilemma of having to admit or falsely deny sur place activities at the travel-document stage (Ground 2A).
4. Whether the UT misdirected itself by relying on Volpi v Volpi (Ground 3A) — this ground was refused permission below and not permitted to proceed to this court.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The F-tT should have assessed risk by reference to country guidance (including specific CG determinations) even if parts of the Appellant's account were rejected; the Appellant relied on an earlier skeleton argument ('the ASA').
• The F-tT should have departed from BA (Demonstrators in Britain - risk on return) because of cogent evidence that the Iranian regime used facial recognition technology (FRT).
• Ground 1A: The F-tT should have made an express finding whether the Appellant had been photographed at demonstrations, given factors such as filming, spotters, the Appellant's Kurdish ethnicity and a high-visibility vest.
• Ground 2A: The F-tT erred by focusing on the regime's inability to identify all returnees rather than whether the Appellant was likely to be identified; if questioned on return the Appellant would face a dilemma (admit or lie), and even contrived activities could attract persecution under the HJ (Iran) principle.

Respondent's Arguments

• The F-tT accurately and thoroughly summarised and applied the relevant country guidance (including BA, PJAK and AB) and made appropriate factual findings on credibility, frequency and profile.
• There was no evidence to support a finding that the Appellant had been photographed or that the Iranian authorities had FRT capability sufficient to make identification likely; requiring a finding about photography would be speculative.
• Ground 2A was speculative and unsupported by evidence: there was no foundation that the Iranian authorities had more sophisticated systems than recognised in the country guidance, nor that the Appellant knew of or feared such systems.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court (Judge Laing, with agreement from Judge Lewis and Judge Moylan) began by identifying the narrow legal question: whether the F-tT materially erred in law in determination 1. The court noted the case did not raise a general legal issue about sur place activities or the status of UT country-guidance determinations and that guidance beyond the particular facts was inappropriate.

The court reviewed the F-tT's factual findings on credibility, frequency and nature of the Appellant's sur place activities, and the careful summary and application of country guidance (BA, PJAK, AB). The F-tT had concluded the Appellant's account of activities in Iran lacked credibility, that his demonstrations and online activity were sporadic, that there was no independent evidence his posts were public or widely available, and that he did not play a significant role in demonstrations.

On Ground 1A (photograph finding) the court held that an express finding whether the Appellant had been photographed was not required: the F-tT could not make such a finding without speculation, and any solitary finding about photography would not have advanced the essential inquiry of whether the Appellant had a profile likely to attract adverse interest. The F-tT had instead examined the CG factors in the round and concluded identification was unlikely; that approach was lawful.

On Ground 2A (risk from questioning on return / the dilemma) the court held the argument lacked the necessary factual foundations. There was no evidential basis to depart from the country guidance conclusions about Iranian surveillance capacity, nor evidence that the Appellant knew of or feared more sophisticated systems. The F-tT had considered the submission and was entitled to reject it as speculative in the absence of supporting evidence.

The court therefore concluded that the F-tT had accurately summarised and lawfully applied the relevant country guidance and that no material error of law had been shown. Judges Lewis and Moylan agreed with Judge Laing's analysis.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Direct effect: The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal, upholding the F-tT's determination that the Appellant did not face a real risk of persecution on return to Iran and that the F-tT did not materially err in law. The Court noted the decision does not establish new general legal principles about sur place activities or country-guidance determinations and refrained from broader guidance; the outcome is limited to the facts and findings of this case.