An asylum seeker has been granted permission to remain in the UK after a judge mistakenly based her decision on the laws and political conditions of Iran instead of Iraq, the man’s actual country of origin.
Judge Helena Suffield-Thompson, presiding over an immigration and asylum tribunal, ruled in favour of the man, citing risks of persecution due to anti-government social media activity. However, she drew her conclusions using country guidance relevant to Iran—a country known for its advanced surveillance of political dissenters—rather than Iraq.
The Iraqi national had applied for asylum on the grounds that he had spoken out online against the Kurdish leadership, both within Iraq and while in the UK. He claimed this put him at risk of arrest or persecution upon return.
While making her decision, Judge Suffield-Thompson noted that the man would be identified and targeted by state surveillance upon returning home, stating that Iraq had a “sophisticated” biometric system and cyber-monitoring capabilities. These features, however, are associated with Iran, not Iraq.
The Home Office challenged the ruling, arguing that the judge had made a “material error” by applying the wrong country’s legal and political context to the case. An upper tribunal later found that the original ruling was flawed in law, confirming that the judge had incorrectly referred to country guidance related to Iran or Turkey, rather than Iraq.
As a result of the misjudgment, the case will now be reheard by a different tribunal.
The asylum seeker’s claims of being targeted by Kurdish authorities for exposing alleged corruption will be reassessed under the correct legal framework, this time considering the actual political conditions in Iraq.
The incident has sparked concern over the accuracy and care taken in handling sensitive asylum cases, where decisions can significantly impact the safety and future of individuals fleeing persecution.
For more UK political updates, follow London Pulse News.
