Iraqi who argued he cannot be deported because he is divorced, wins appeal after legal error

Telegraph

23-07-2025

An Iraqi who entered the UK illegally has won an appeal after arguing he cannot be deported because he is divorced.
In claims disputed by the Home Office, he said he divorced a 'prominent' politician's daughter and brought 'dishonour' upon their family. The Iraqi said it would breach his human rights to send him back to Iraq because he was at risk of an 'honour feud'.
The Iraqi, who was granted anonymity, has won an appeal at an upper immigration tribunal for his case to be reheard after it was initially rejected by the Home Office and lower court.
The Iraqi entered Britain 'clandestinely' in 2020 after travelling through Turkey and across Europe before arriving by boat in the UK. He submitted his application for asylum the following day.
The court was told that his 'claim for asylum is based upon a claimed risk of being a victim of an honour-based crime'.
'He alleges that he fled Iraq due to threats from his former father-in-law, a prominent and influential politician affiliated with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.
'According to the [Iraqi], he was accused of bringing dishonour upon [his ex-father-in-law's] family by divorcing his daughter,' the court was told.
It was accepted that he was married and went through a divorce, but the Home Office 'did not accept that he had experienced problems from his ex-father-in-law'.
The Home Office issued a deportation order but the Iraqi, who had a child with his ex-wife, appealed the decision. His challenge was dismissed by a lower tribunal as the judge questioned 'the credibility of the marriage itself'.
The First-tier Tribunal said there was a 'disparity in social status' between his ex-wife – the daughter of a powerful politician – and him, a 'minimally educated taxi driver from a marginalised tribe'.
A claim by the Iraqi that he had also been the victim of a 'violent' attack linked to the honour feud and stabbed 17 times was dismissed as implausible by the judge, partly because it was 'unsubstantiated' by any medical evidence. The judge said the asylum claim appeared a 'complete fabrication'.
The Iraqi appealed to the upper tribunal where the judge Sara Anzani said the lower court was wrong to question the marriage and divorce certificates and said the Iraqi was not given a chance to respond to their doubts.
Judge Anzani said: 'These concerns about the reliability and authenticity of the marriage and divorce certificates were not previously raised by the [Home Office], nor were they put to the [Iraqi] during the hearing.
'I find that the Judge's failure to raise his concerns about the authenticity and reliability of the marriage and divorce certificates, concerns not previously identified by the [Home Office], deprived the [Iraqi] of a fair opportunity to address the Judge's doubts.
'The Judge's findings on the marriage and divorce certificates contribute to his overall assessment of the [Iraqi's] credibility, and the ultimate finding that [his] claim was fabricated.
'Consequently, this procedural error is material and permeates the entirety of the Judge's decision'.
Judge Anzani concluded that the case must be heard afresh at the First-tier Tribunal again, but not by the previous judge.