Latest news with #JudgeMarkBlundell

Telegraph

Kurdish migrant claiming asylum over ‘affair with uncle's wife'

An Iraqi Kurd who arrived in Britain on a small boat claimed asylum because he had an affair with his uncle's wife. The unnamed man, named only as BQ, claimed that he would be killed by his uncle if he returned home and also feared that he would be 'targeted' by his wife's family. BQ claimed that the affair began in February 2018 and he was caught in 2019, before he fled to his sister's house and then left Iraq. He was taken to the Turkish border and then travelled through Europe before he entered the UK by boat in December 2020. He claimed asylum on December 10 2020 but his claim was refused three years later. BQ appealed that decision at the first-tier tribunal, where a judge rejected his claims based on inconsistencies between his asylum screening interview and his later, substantive asylum interview. In his appeal witness statement, BQ said: 'I would go to see [my aunt] around once a week when my uncle was not home, due to his job he would be away from home for days at a time... and as my family were aware of my uncle's wife's situation, and as we were related, no one questioned if I was seen at my uncle's house. Regardless, we were careful not to be seen.' He has appealed the decision to the Upper tribunal on five grounds and said he refutes the judge's claims that he gave inconsistent answers about relationship status and held this against his credibility. Upper tribunal Judge Mark Blundell agreed the judge made errors on all five grounds, and the matter will be heard again at the first-tier tribunal for a rehearing. Mr Blundell said: 'The common law principle of fairness requires the tribunal to consider with care the extent to which reliance can properly be placed on the answers given by the applicant in his screening interview.' Andrew Deakin, the deputy judge of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum chamber, said: 'In light of the number and significance of the errors identified, I cannot be confident that the judge would have reached the same conclusion even if he had not erred in the ways identified above. I accordingly find that the errors identified above are material.' The rehearing will be heard before a different judge.