An Iraqi migrant who entered the UK illegally by boat has won an appeal after arguing he can’t be deported because he’s a divorcee.
The migrant won the appeal at the immigration court after saying he can’t return to Iraq because of a divorce he went through in his home country.
In claims that are disputed by the Home Office, he said he divorced a ‘prominent’ politician’s daughter and brought ‘dishonour’ upon their family.
The Iraqi says it would violate his human rights to send him back to Iraq because he is at risk of an ‘honour feud’.
He even alleges he was ambushed by four armed men who stabbed him ’17 times’ – however there are question marks over the claim due to a lack of medical evidence.
The Iraqi, who has been granted anonymity, won an appeal at the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber to have his case reheard.
The tribunal was told the Iraqi is of Kurdish ethnicity and Sunni Muslim faith and is from Sulaymaniyah City, in the Kurdish region.
A tribunal judgement said he entered Britain ‘clandestinely’ in 2020.
An Iraqi migrant who entered the UK illegally by boat has won an appeal after arguing he can’t be deported because he’s a divorcee (File image)
The judgement said: ‘He departed Iraq on July 26, 2019, initially travelling by air to Turkey, and subsequently continued his journey through Greece, Italy, and France, ultimately entering the United Kingdom clandestinely by boat on August 7, 2020.
‘He submitted an application for asylum the following day.
‘[The Iraqi’s] 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 (PUK).
‘According to the [Iraqi], he was accused of bringing dishonour upon [his ex-father-in-law’s] family by divorcing his daughter.’
It was accepted 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 it at the First-tier Tribunal last year.
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal, with the judge at the time ‘questioning 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’.
In response to the Iraqi’s claims that he was the victim of a ‘violent’ attack linked to the honour feud and stabbed 17 times, the judge also said there were ‘credibility issues’.
The First-tier Tribunal judge said the account was ‘implausible and unsubstantiated by any hospital records or medical evidence’.
The judge at the time said his ‘asylum claim was entirely lacking in credibility and determined that it was a complete fabrication’.
The Iraqi appealed the case again at the Upper Tribunal and it has now been found that the First-tier Tribunal judge made mistakes in law.
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal Sara Anzani said the judge was wrong to question the marriage and divorce certificates and said the judge did not give the Iraqi 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.’
