UI2023001812

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity because the case involves protection issues. 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 .

             The appellant appealed the respondent's decision dated 22 September 2022 to refuse a protection and human rights claim.

             The judge noted that there was no plausible explanation as to why the KDPI would approach him to smuggle leaflets. He did not suggest that he was paid to do so. The judge concluded that, in light of the extreme risk that he and his family would face if caught, and the lack of any reward or interest in the cause, she considered that it was 'highly unlikely' that the appellant would become involved in smuggling leaflets [5.6].

             The judge also found aspects of the appellant's account of how arrangements were made to leave Iran to be implausible. She found it reasonable to infer that people smugglers would require payment. However, it was implausible that the appellant paid nothing. Even if his mother's cousin had paid, it was implausible that a farmer was likely to have contacts with people who could smuggle the appellant out of Iran at 24 hours notice and would have the resources to pay them to take the appellant all the way to the UK [5.9].

             The judge found that the fact that the appellant passed through a number of potentially safe countries without claiming asylum was also a matter that was damaging to his overall credibility [5.12]-[5.15]. Earlier in the decision she noted the statutory requirement contained in section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 ('AITCA 2004') to take into account such matters.