A Kurdish man from Iraq has successfully secured the right to remain in the UK after his asylum claim was initially rejected.

His case centers around his tattoos, which led to severe family rejection and threats to his life.

Identified only as AA to protect his identity, he argued that returning to Iraq would expose him to the risk of violence and inhumane treatment due to his tattoos, which his family deemed contrary to Islamic principles.

Family Rejection and Escalating Danger

AA fled Iraq after his father and uncle discovered the tattoos on his body.

Their reaction was violent, as they saw his tattoos as a dishonor to their family and a deviation from religious teachings.

AA explained to the tribunal that his father and uncle had even attempted to burn the tattoos off his skin, and when this failed, they planned to kill him for what they considered dishonoring the family.

Fearing for his life, AA’s brother secretly helped him escape, securing a flight and obtaining AA’s passport, which was usually kept by their father.

However, in the chaos of his escape, AA could not take critical identity documents, including his Iraqi National Identity Card, which were in his father’s possession.

This absence of documentation became a key issue in his asylum claim, as it would make his return to Iraq extremely dangerous.

The Home Office’s Initial Rejection

Upon arriving in the UK, AA applied for asylum and claimed that his human rights would be violated if he returned to Iraq.

The Home Office initially rejected his request in November 2023, arguing that he could seek protection from the state or relocate within Iraq.

The Home Office also suggested that AA could travel internally within the country, despite the risks he outlined.

However, in April 2024, AA appealed this decision.

He argued that his father and uncle had strong connections to the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), a political party in control of Iraq’s Kurdish region.

This meant that even if he relocated, his family members could easily track him down and harm him.

AA also reiterated that without his identity documents, he could not safely return to Iraq, as he would be vulnerable to further persecution.

The Upper Tribunal’s Decision

Initially, the First-tier Tribunal ruled against AA, stating that despite the family’s political connections, the Iraqi state would not expend significant resources searching for him, especially if he relocated to a different part of the country.

They also believed that AA’s mother could retrieve the necessary identity documents from his father, as she had already helped him secure his passport.

However, in a significant turn of events, the Upper Tribunal overturned this decision.

Judge Makesh Joshi ruled in favor of AA, acknowledging that requesting his mother or brother to retrieve the identity card would put them at risk, as they could be harmed by his father.

The judge also concluded that without these documents, AA would likely face inhumane or degrading treatment upon his return to Iraq.

Refugee Status Granted

The Upper Tribunal also ruled that AA should be granted refugee status due to the risks of an “honor crime” from his father and uncle.

Judge Joshi noted that AA’s father and uncle had already attempted to harm him for dishonoring the family, and that relocating within Iraq would not protect him from such a threat.

The decision emphasized that expecting AA to live without encountering conditions that would violate human rights in Iraq was both unreasonable and unduly harsh.

In the end, the Upper Tribunal’s ruling marked a significant victory for AA, recognizing the danger he would face if forced to return to Iraq and ensuring his protection in the UK.