‘Iranian' refugee can stay in Britain – by claiming he's now Afghan

Telegraph

20-07-2025

An asylum seeker who claimed to be Iranian has won a reprieve to stay in the UK after maintaining he is now Afghan and in fear of the Taliban.
The man, granted anonymity by immigration judges, had his asylum claim rejected 10 years ago after failing to establish that he had a 'well-founded fear of persecution' if returned to Iran.
He was not, however, removed from the UK and lodged an appeal, ahead of which he claimed to have lived in Afghanistan until he was 17 before travelling to Iran.
He claimed that he had not raised it previously and instead falsely asserted to be Iranian out of fear of being returned to Afghanistan, legal documents disclose.
The Home Office argued his credibility was 'significantly undermined' by his claim previously to be Iranian but judges ordered his case should be reheard because he was not present when his appeal was rejected. His lawyers claimed his non-attendance was due to an administrative oversight.
The appeal is the latest case revealed in court papers, seen by The Telegraph, where illegal migrants or foreign criminals have been allowed to remain in the UK.
It follows the revelation that thousands of Afghans have moved to the UK under a secret scheme which was set up after a British official inadvertently leaked their data.
The existence of the leak and relocations was kept secret after the Government obtained a super-injunction stopping it from becoming public.
The asylum seeker arrived in the UK in August 2012 and claimed asylum the following month. An appeal by a first-tier immigration tribunal was rejected on the basis that he was found to 'lack credibility and to have failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran.'
He remained in the UK and in July 2021 appealed, claiming he feared persecution upon return to Iran on account of his Baluch ethnicity, his Sunni Muslim faith, and the fact that he had left Iran illegally.
The man claimed his brother's smuggling activities would also place him at risk if returned and that his poor mental health would prevent him from reintegrating in Iran, in breach of his article three rights to protection from persecution under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Then, in a witness statement submitted in advance of his appeal hearing, he provided an alternative basis for claiming asylum – that he was a national of Afghanistan, where he lived until the age of 17.
He claimed he left Afghanistan because of the problems his family faced with the Taliban. He further indicated that his father, brother, and sister remain residents in Afghanistan.
'He stated that, upon claiming asylum in the UK, he falsely asserted Iranian nationality out of fear of being returned to Afghanistan. He now claims that, if returned to Afghanistan, he would face ill-treatment at the hands of the Taliban,' the court was told.
'He also maintains that his mental health issues would constitute very significant obstacles to his reintegration in Afghanistan and that his removal would therefore amount to a breach of Article 8 [rights to a family life] under the ECHR.'
'His credibility was central'
The Home Office maintained that, given he had previously advanced a claim based on Iranian nationality, his credibility was now 'significantly undermined'.
Officials also said there was 'no substantive evidence' to establish his Afghan nationality, except for a biometric identity card allegedly belonging to his cousin, 'for which no supporting evidence of a familial relationship was provided'.
But after he failed to turn up for the hearing, an upper immigration tribunal judge ruled that his case should be reheard by a first-tier tribunal.
This was because his 'credibility was central to the determination of the claim, thereby rendering his oral evidence of critical importance', the court ruled.
'Furthermore, there was evidence before the Tribunal of the [asylum seeker's] documented mental health difficulties, which required careful consideration in the context of procedural fairness.
'The Judge's reasoning fails to reflect adequate engagement with these issues, or with the question of whether the appeal could be fairly and justly determined in the [asylum seeker's] absence.'