Asylum seeker wins immigration appeal to have case reheard after changing his nationality from Iranian to Afghan halfway through the case

Daily Mail​

3 days ago

An asylum seeker has won an immigration appeal after changing his nationality from Iranian to Afghan halfway through the case.
The migrant initially told the Home Office that he left Iran 'illegally' and if he returned would be in danger of persecution because he was an ethnic and religious minority.
However, this claim was dismissed.
He later appealed the matter, claiming he was actually from Afghanistan and had been forced to leave due to problems his family faced with the Taliban.
The unnamed migrant said if he were to return he would suffer a decline in his mental health which would breach his human rights.
A hearing with a First-tier Tribunal judge took place but due to an 'administration oversight', the migrant and his solicitors did not attend and so his appeal was dismissed.
He has since appealed this decision and an Upper Tribunal judge has now ruled that his case should be reheard because his in-person evidence was of 'critical importance' to testing credibility.
The Upper Tribunal heard the man arrived in the UK in August 2012 and claimed asylum the following month.
File image: The migrant initially told the Home Office that he left Iran 'illegally' and if he returned would be in danger of persecution because he was an ethnic and religious minority
His claim was refused in 2015, and despite his attempts to appeal the decision, he was unsuccessful after it was found that he 'lacked credibility' and 'failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran'.
The man remained in the UK and in July 2021 told the Home Office that 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.
He stated that his brother's involvement in smuggling activities would place him at risk if he returned, and that his 'serious underlying mental health conditions' would impact his reintegration into Iran, which he claims would breach his human rights.
The tribunal said that he submitted a witness statement in advance of an appeal hearing which spoke of an alternative reason why he needed protection.
The judgement said the man 'now claims to be a national of Afghanistan' and had left the country when he was 17.
He stated that he had left Afghanistan due to problems his family faced with the Taliban, and told of how his father, brother, and sister still live there.
The man then explained that he left Afghanistan in 2011 before travelling to Iran, Turkey, and then the UK.
The judgment states: 'He stated that, upon claiming asylum in the UK, he falsely asserted Iranian nationality out of fear of being returned to Afghanistan.
File image: The unnamed migrant said if he were to return he would suffer a decline in his mental health which would breach his human rights
'He now claims that, if returned to Afghanistan, he would face ill-treatment at the hands of the Taliban.'
The man again said that his mental health issues would constitute 'very significant obstacles' to his reintegration in Afghanistan, and so his removal would breach his human rights.
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Sara Anzani decided that the matter should be heard afresh by the First-tier Tribunal.
The judge said: 'This was a protection appeal in which the [man's] credibility was central to the determination of the claim, thereby rendering his oral evidence of critical importance.
'Furthermore, there was evidence before the Tribunal of the [man'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 [man's] absence.
'For these reasons, I find that the Judge did not address all relevant material considerations and failed to properly assess whether refusing the [man's] readjournment request would compromise his right to a fair hearing.'