In a recent legal development involving immigration law, an Iraqi asylum seeker’s case has garnered significant attention due to a mix-up concerning the geographical origins of guidance related to asylum claims. The unnamed individual was initially granted asylum in the UK, but it has emerged that the judge responsible for the ruling may have relied on information relevant to Iran rather than Iraq.

The case was examined by Judge Helena Suffield-Thompson during a hearing that took place in July 2022, where the claimant argued that he faced significant risks if deported back to Iraq. The man’s asylum application stemmed from his engagements on social media, particularly posts on his public Facebook account that included anti-Iraq government sentiments. He contended that his activities could expose him to persecution from the Iraqi authorities upon his return.

Judge Suffield-Thompson ruled in favour of the man, acknowledging that the Iraqi government possessed “sophisticated” means to monitor the online activities of dissenters, which she claimed placed him at risk. Her decision was based on the available country guidance that, as it has turned out, was not pertinent for Iraq, but instead applied to the situations in Iran and Turkey.

The case took another turn when the Home Office, currently headed by Yvette Cooper, filed an appeal against the ruling, asserting that Judge Suffield-Thompson had erred in law. The Home Office argued that the factual findings were based on guidance pertaining to countries other than Iraq, which does not have the same level of monitoring of social media as its neighbours. According to the Home Office, the evidence submitted by the judge about the purported ability of Iraqi authorities to surveil social media posts was unfounded, as there is no substantial indication that such monitoring is practiced by the Iraqi government.

On evaluation, the Upper Tribunal convened to examine the appeal and concurred with the Home Office’s perspective. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Lucy Murray pointed out that the prior ruling incorrectly conflated case law from Iran with that of Iraq. Judge Murray elaborated that there was no substantial evidence supporting the notion that Iraqi authorities had developed intricate monitoring systems akin to those in Iran. Consequently, the Upper Tribunal decided that the entire asylum case must be reconsidered afresh at the First-tier Tribunal, indicating that all initial findings would not be preserved for consideration in the new assessment.

This significant ruling highlights the complexities involved in immigration adjudications, particularly the critical necessity for accurate country guidance when assessing risk factors for asylum seekers. The man, who has faced legal challenges in articulating his claim since his first application was dismissed in 2019, will now have to present his case anew, with the legal landscape around his situation considerably reshaped by the identified judicial error.

Source: Noah Wire Services