An asylum seeker who initially claimed to be Iranian has won the right to have his case reheard after telling immigration judges he is actually Afghan and fears persecution by the Taliban, an Upper Tribunal has ruled.
The unnamed migrant, who arrived in Britain in August 2012, originally told the Home Office he faced persecution in Iran due to his Baluch ethnicity and Sunni Muslim faith. However, after his claim was rejected for lacking credibility, he changed his account to say he was from Afghanistan and had falsely claimed Iranian nationality out of fear of being returned to Taliban-controlled territory.
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Sara Anzani ruled that the man’s case should be heard afresh by the First-tier Tribunal, finding that his absence from a crucial hearing due to an “administration oversight” had compromised his right to a fair hearing. The judge emphasised that the migrant’s oral evidence was of “critical importance” in testing the credibility of his revised claim.
Decade-Long Immigration Battle
The case highlights the complexities of Britain’s overwhelmed asylum system, where successful appeals increased success rates by between 13 and 21 percentage points for applications received between 2011 and 2018. The unnamed man’s journey through the immigration courts spans more than a decade, beginning when he claimed asylum in September 2012.
His initial claim was refused in 2015, with immigration officials finding that he “lacked credibility and to have failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran.” Despite this rejection, he remained in the UK and submitted fresh representations in July 2021, maintaining his Iranian nationality claim but citing new grounds for protection.
“The harm that you received does not rise to the level of persecution,” a First-tier Tribunal judge had previously told him, according to court documents. The man argued that his brother’s involvement in smuggling activities and his own mental health conditions would place him at risk if returned to Iran.
Nationality Switch Raises Credibility Questions
The most striking development came when the man submitted a witness statement ahead of his appeal hearing, dramatically altering the basis of his protection claim. He “now claims to be a national of Afghanistan, where he lived until the age of 17.”
According to the tribunal judgment, the man explained that he left Afghanistan in 2011 due to problems his family faced with the Taliban, before travelling through Iran and Turkey to reach the UK. He claimed his father, brother, and sister still live in Afghanistan, with his family forced into hiding.
The Home Office argued that his credibility was “significantly undermined” by his previous claim to Iranian nationality. Officials noted 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.”
Mental Health Concerns Central to Appeal
A crucial factor in the Upper Tribunal’s decision was the appellant’s documented mental health difficulties, which his legal team argued would constitute “very significant obstacles” to his reintegration in either Iran or Afghanistan. The man maintained that deportation would breach his human rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against inhuman or degrading treatment.
Immigration law expert Mona Iman, who has represented similar cases, told reporters: “Mental health considerations are increasingly recognised as central to protection claims, particularly where appellants face return to countries with limited healthcare infrastructure.
The tribunal’s judgment noted that these mental health issues “required careful consideration in the context of procedural fairness.
Administrative Error Leads to Missed Hearing
The case took another turn when neither the migrant nor his solicitors attended a crucial First-tier Tribunal hearing due to what was described as an “administration oversight.” The tribunal proceeded in their absence and dismissed the appeal, prompting the subsequent challenge to the Upper Tribunal.
Deputy Judge Anzani found that “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.”
This was a protection appeal in which credibility was central to the determination of the claim,” the judge stated, emphasising the importance of hearing oral evidence directly from the appellant.
Wider Context of Afghan Claims
The case comes against a backdrop of significant changes in how Britain processes Afghan asylum claims. Following the publication of new Home Office guidance, over 2,050 Afghans had their asylum claims refused compared to 1,859 individuals who were granted international protection in the last quarter of 2024.
This represents a dramatic shift from earlier policies, when nearly all Afghans who received an initial decision on their asylum application in 2023 were granted protection. The grant rate for Afghan asylum seekers had increased substantially following the Taliban’s return to power in 2021.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “We carefully consider all asylum claims on their individual merits in accordance with our international obligations. Where credibility concerns arise, including changes in claimed nationality, these are thoroughly examined through our appeals process.
Growing Appeals Backlog
The case also highlights Britain’s burgeoning asylum appeals backlog. The number of pending appeals before the First-tier asylum tribunal has risen six-fold in two years – to 42,000 at the end of 2024.
Around 16,000 asylum appeals were decided in 2024. Although that was 76% more than the year before, it was significantly lower than the 37,000 new appeals lodged in 2024. This growing backlog means many asylum seekers face years of uncertainty while awaiting final decisions on their cases.
Immigration tribunals are under increasing pressure to process cases efficiently while ensuring procedural fairness. Of the 10,000 appeals that received a substantive decision in 2024, 47% were successful and resulted in the overturning of the Home Office’s initial decision.
Expert Analysis
Dr Sarah Chen, a migration policy researcher at Oxford University, said the case illustrates the challenges facing both asylum seekers and decision-makers in complex claims. “When applicants change fundamental aspects of their account, it creates significant credibility hurdles. However, there can be legitimate reasons why people initially provide false information, including fear, trauma, or poor legal advice.”
She added: “The tribunal’s emphasis on procedural fairness and the need to hear oral evidence reflects established principles in refugee law. Credibility assessments require careful consideration of all evidence, particularly where mental health issues are involved.
What Happens Next
The case will now return to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing, where the man will have the opportunity to present his evidence in person. His legal team will need to address the credibility concerns arising from his change in claimed nationality while also presenting evidence about his mental health conditions and the risks he would face if returned to Afghanistan.
The tribunal will need to consider current conditions in Afghanistan, where women and girls enjoy greater freedom of movement, access to quality education, and ability to seek divorce than do women and girls in Afghanistan under Taliban rule, alongside evidence about the treatment of returnees.
Human rights organisations continue to monitor the situation for Afghan nationals in the UK asylum system. “Each case must be assessed on its individual merits,” said James Fletcher from Refugee Action. The significant changes in Afghanistan since 2021 mean that many people who might not have qualified for protection previously may now face genuine risks if returned.
The Upper Tribunal’s decision to remit the case for a fresh hearing underscores the importance of ensuring all asylum seekers receive a fair opportunity to present their claims, regardless of inconsistencies in their accounts. As Deputy Judge Anzani concluded, the failure to properly assess whether refusing the readjournment request would “compromise his right to a fair hearing” constituted a material error of law requiring the appeal to be reheard.
With thousands of similar cases working their way through Britain’s immigration courts, this ruling may have implications for how tribunals handle procedural issues and credibility assessments in complex asylum claims.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
