The Court of Appeal held on 9 June 2026 that the First-tier Tribunal made no material error of law in rejecting an Iranian Kurd's asylum claim, which rested partly on his activities in the UK.
Key facts
- Who: DA, an Iranian Kurd refused asylum, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department
- From: 9 June 2026 (date of judgment)
- Source: DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 724
DA is an Iranian national and a Kurd. He arrived in the United Kingdom illegally by boat on 26 September 2021 and claimed asylum three days later. The Secretary of State refused the claim on 5 May 2023 and maintained that decision on review on 25 January 2024. The Secretary of State's view was that he was a national of Iraq, not Iran.
The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed his appeal. It did not believe his account of his activities in Iran. It also held that his "sur place" activities in the UK did not create a real risk of persecution or ill-treatment if he returned to Iran. The Upper Tribunal dismissed his further appeal.
Edis LJ gave permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on two grounds. He said sur place claims were very common and there was a compelling reason for an authoritative decision. The grounds were:
- the First-tier Tribunal erred by not finding whether DA had been photographed at demonstrations outside the Iranian Embassy; and
- it erred in assessing the risk arising if he were questioned on return to Iran.
Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing, with Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Lewis, dismissed the appeal. She said the case raised no general legal issue about sur place activities or the status of country guidance determinations. Nor would it be appropriate for the court to give guidance, because the issues depended on the evidence before, and the findings of fact made by, the First-tier Tribunal and were particular to this case. The question was simply whether that tribunal had materially erred in law, and she did not consider that it had. If it had not, the Upper Tribunal did not err in upholding its decision.
On the questioning point, DA's counsel argued that he would face a dilemma at the airport: lie about his activities and risk exposure, or tell the truth and face persecution. Counsel acknowledged that no country guidance determination supported this point and that no evidence before the First-tier Tribunal supported it. Moylan LJ remarked in argument that it "looks like a hypothetical submission".
The First-tier Tribunal had relied on the finding in BA (Demonstrators in Britain – risk on return) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 00308 (IAC) that the Iranian regime's ability to identify all returnees remains limited. For an infrequent demonstrator who plays no particular role and whose participation is not highlighted in the media, it found no real risk of identification.
What this means for asylum appellants
The court stressed that its decision turned on the evidence and findings in DA's own case, and it gave no general guidance on sur place activities. Anyone with a sur place claim should not read the ruling as setting a rule for other cases. Those facing a refusal or an appeal deadline should get advice on their own evidence before time runs out.
Sources
- DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 724, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 9 June 2026