Asylum seeker granted permission to stay in Britain after judge makes a terrible mistake
An Iraqi asylum seeker has been granted permission to stay in the UK after a judge mistakenly applied guidelines relevant to Iran, rather than Iraq, to his case. Judge Helena Suffield-Thompson ruled in favor of the man, citing the risk of persecution due to anti-government posts on his Facebook page.
However, her decision was based on the assumption that Iraqi authorities have the same “sophisticated” surveillance capabilities as Iran, which was later found to be incorrect.
The unnamed man had initially been denied asylum in 2019 but won his appeal in 2022 after arguing that he was at risk from Kurdish leadership due to his anti-corruption activism and social media posts. Judge Suffield-Thompson’s ruling referenced Iranian case law, mistakenly believing it applied to Iraq.
The Home Office appealed the decision, pointing out that the judge had relied on country guidance for Iran and Turkey, not Iraq. An upper immigration tribunal found that there was no evidence to suggest Iraqi authorities monitor the social media activities of anti-government protesters abroad, as is the case in Iran.
Judge Frances Murray, who reviewed the case, noted that Judge Suffield-Thompson had incorrectly cited Iranian case law and omitted the word “Iran” in her ruling. As a result, the tribunal concluded that the assessment of risk was based on irrelevant country guidance, and the case will now be reheard by a new tribunal.
This case highlights the complexities and potential errors in asylum decisions, particularly when judges rely on incorrect or outdated country guidance. The Home Office has emphasized the need for accurate assessments to ensure fair and lawful outcomes for asylum seekers.
What do you think about this case and the broader challenges of asylum decision-making? Should there be stricter checks to prevent such errors? Let us know in the comments. Don’t forget to like and follow for more updates on immigration and asylum issues.
