Iranian man fails in asylum claim based on political activity in the UK

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the case of an Iranian man seeking asylum on the basis of sur place activity, namely his political activity after arriving in the UK. The case is OM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1585.

The appellant’s asylum claim was originally based on a fear of persecution arising from his support of a Kurdish political group. This was later expanded to include his attendance at demonstrations against the Iranian government, as well as related Facebook posts.

His asylum claim was refused on 22 August 2023 and his appeal dismissed in May 2024. The First-tier Tribunal was not satisfied that his political activity in the UK had come to the attention of the Iranian authorities or that his social media activity had been viewed and shared widely, if at all.

The tribunal concluded that this evidence had been contrived to support the appellant’s asylum claim and was not satisfied that he was genuinely politically motivated. Reference was made to the relevant country guidance cases of XX v SSHD (PJAK – sur place activities – Facebook) Iran CG [2022] UKUT 23 (IAC) and HB v SSHD (Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 430 (IAC).

The Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal but the appeal was then refused on all grounds, with the tribunal concluding that there had been no error of law. The appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant argued that the First-tier Tribunal had not properly applied the “hair trigger” approach set out in HB which “means that the threshold for suspicion is low and the reaction of the authorities is reasonably likely to be extreme”.

It was agreed by the parties that as the appellant had left Iran illegally, he was likely to be questioned when returned. The Court of Appeal said that neither the First-tier Tribunal nor the Upper Tribunal had clearly addressed the question of what would happen at this point.

The court referred to the factual findings made by the First-tier Tribunal including the government’s lack of knowledge of his activities, and noted that the country guidance demonstrates that while a failed asylum seeker will be questioned, this “would not lead to second stage interrogation unless something of concern to the Iranian authorities arose during the initial questioning”. The Court of Appeal concluded that:

On the express findings made by the judge, it can properly be inferred that the appellant would not be expected to volunteer information about his contrived activities in the UK when questioned on arrival in Iran. In those circumstances, as in S, the judge was entitled to reach the conclusion she did that the appellant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution, serious harm or Article 3 ill-treatment.

The appeal was dismissed.