BA (Iran) appeal dismissed over credibility and sur place activism findings

A First-tier Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of an Iranian national of Kurdish ethnicity against the Home Office's refusal of his protection claim, finding that his account of persecution in Iran was not credible and that his subsequent activism in the United Kingdom was not genuine.

The case, BA (Iran) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appeal Number PA/55944/2025), was heard in Birmingham on 19 September 2026 before First-tier Tribunal Judge J M Dixon, with the decision handed down on 22 September 2026. An anonymity direction was made, the judge finding that the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention outweighed the principle of open justice in the circumstances of the case.

The appellant claimed to have taken part in two demonstrations in Iran in November 2022 following the death of Mahsa Amini. He said the authorities subsequently identified him through CCTV footage after his cousin, arrested at the same protests, disclosed his details under duress. He further claimed his father had been detained and later assaulted by the authorities in March 2025, and that he had continued this activism in the UK through demonstrations and Facebook posts.

Two issues fell to be determined: whether the appellant had come to the adverse attention of the Iranian authorities through his participation in demonstrations, which the respondent accepted would establish a risk of persecution if proven, and whether he faced risk on the basis of genuine sur place activity in the UK.

Applying the two-stage test set out in JCK (s.32 NABA 2022) Botswana [2024] UKUT 00100 under section 32 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the judge found the appellant's account lacking in credibility. He was described as evasive when asked how he knew CCTV footage had been checked, a question he avoided answering despite it being repeated. More significantly, his account of the timeline between his cousin's arrest, the disclosure of his details, and his own departure from Iran contained material inconsistencies that shifted substantially between his witness statement and his oral evidence, inconsistencies the judge found could not be attributed to genuine error or interpretation difficulties.

The judge also attached little weight to a purported hospital record submitted in support of the claim that the appellant's father had been assaulted, noting inconsistencies in the document's language and handwriting and a lack of corroborating evidence, including any supporting statement from family members despite the appellant maintaining regular contact with them.

On the sur place claim, the judge accepted the appellant had attended six demonstrations in the UK but found he held no organising role and had no political profile before leaving Iran. Referring to the country guidance cases BA (Demonstrators in Britain) Iran [2011] UKUT 36, HB (Kurds) Iran [2018] UKUT 430, SB (risk on return, illegal exit) Iran [2009] UKAIT 0053, SSH and HR (illegal exit: failed asylum seeker) Iran [2016] UKUT 00308, and XX (PJAK, sur place activities, Facebook) [2022] UKUT 00023, the judge concluded that the appellant's activities were undertaken to bolster a fabricated claim rather than reflecting genuine political conviction, and that he would close his Facebook account before returning to Iran without being compelled to lie about it, since the activity was not genuine in the first place.

The judge further found that the Iranian regime lacked the facial recognition capacity to pose a risk to the appellant, and that neither his Kurdish ethnicity nor his illegal exit, in combination with return on a laissez-passer, would expose him to persecutory treatment.

Both the asylum and human rights grounds of appeal were dismissed, and no fee award was made.