UI2022003878

Although the grant specifies only the Facebook matter, Mr Diwyncz accepted that it opens the door to all grounds. Mr Martin, however, focused his challenge on ground 1, and did not expand on the rest of the grounds.

Mr Martin accepted that he could not challenge the conclusion at [21] that the appellant's "use of Facebook for political purposes and his involvement in demonstrations in the UK is at a very low level". However, he emphasised that there was no suggestion of bad faith, and so the appellant could not be expected to conceal or deny his activities. He argued that there was error in drawing the conclusion that the appellant "would not be exposed to a risk of harm in Iraq as a consequence of his anti-regime sur place activities".

That proposition in the grounds is followed by reference to the respondent's 2021 CPIN, to the general effect of no risk to low level opponents of the authorities in the KRG. The argument is developed that such information is "of some antiquity" and is superseded by XX , taken along with difficulties in re-documentation in Iraq, a process likely to lead to official questioning and suspicion, and revelation of the basis of the claim made in the UK.

Mr Diwyncz said that although this was not a case where the appellant could be expected to delete his Facebook record, he had simply not taken part in any activity at a level where there was evidence of retribution from the authorities in the KRG, even if it did become known to them. He also said that any risk of attention through the re-documentation process would be minimal, as latest information showed that now to be an easy and routine process. He accepted my observation that any change about documentation would be relevant only if the decision were to be remade, not regarding error of law.

Mr Martin had nothing to add.

I reserved my decision.

XX is a misleading analogy. Findings about Iran cannot simply be transposed to Iraq.

There was no foundation before the FtT for a finding that the appellant's activities were likely to become known to the authorities.

In any event, that was not the decisive issue. The FtT concluded at [24]:

The appellant founded upon no background evidence that the authorities in the IKR persecute political actors at his trivial level. The Judge was correct in finding that such activities carry no risk. Ground 1 discloses no error.

Ground 2 is based on a clear typographical error. The only intended finding, to be consistent with the rest of the decision, is "no real risk".

Grounds 3, 4 and 5 are dogged insistence and disagreement on the facts, but no more. They show no error of law in the FtT's analysis of the evidence.

The appeal to the UT is dismissed. The decision of the FtT stands.

The FtT made an anonymity order, which is observed herein.

November 2023