DA v Home Secretary: Court of Appeal upholds dismissal of Iranian Kurd's sur place asylum appeal

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of DA, an Iranian Kurdish national, against the refusal of his asylum claim, finding that the First-tier Tribunal had committed no material error of law in its assessment of his sur place activities in the United Kingdom and the risk those activities posed upon return to Iran. The judgement, handed down on 9 June 2026 in DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 724, was given by Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing, with whom Lords Justice Moylan and Lewis agreed.

DA arrived in the United Kingdom illegally by boat in September 2021 and claimed asylum shortly thereafter. The Secretary of State refused his claim in May 2023. DA appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), which dismissed his appeal in two respects: it did not find his account of political activities in Iran credible, and it concluded that his sur place activities in the United Kingdom, consisting of attendance at demonstrations outside the Iranian Embassy and posts on Facebook, did not give rise to a real risk of persecution on return.

The sur place activities in question comprised attendance at six demonstrations between June 2023 and February 2024, together with eight Facebook posts criticising the Iranian regime. The First-tier Tribunal found that DA's participation was sporadic, that he had played no significant or organisational role in any demonstration, and that there was no evidence his activities had attracted media coverage. Critically, it found that his attendance had been contrived to bolster his asylum claim rather than reflecting any genuine political commitment to Kurdish rights, a conclusion DA had, in the tribunal's assessment, "candidly admitted" during his asylum interview.

The tribunal applied the relevant country guidance, principally BA (Demonstrators in Britain -- risk on return) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 00308 (IAC) and XX (PJAK, sur place activities, Facebook) Iran (CG) [2022] UKUT 23 (IAC), which identify a range of factors bearing on the risk of identification by the Iranian authorities, including the nature and frequency of a person's activities, their role and profile, and whether their participation has been highlighted in the media. On those factors, the tribunal concluded there was no serious possibility that DA's activities had come to the attention of the Iranian authorities.

Two grounds of appeal reached the Court of Appeal with permission from Edis LJ, who noted that sur place claims were very common and that authoritative guidance would be of value.

On ground 1A, DA argued that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law by failing to make a specific finding as to whether he had been photographed by Iranian agents at the demonstrations. Lady Justice Laing rejected that argument. The tribunal was not in a position to make such a finding without speculating, and even if it had, the finding would not have advanced the inquiry without further speculation as to what use the authorities might have made of any photograph. What mattered was whether DA had a profile likely to arouse the adverse interest of the Iranian authorities, and the tribunal addressed that question squarely.

On ground 2A, DA argued that the tribunal had failed to grapple with the dilemma he would face if questioned on return: either to lie about his sur place activities and risk exposure, or to admit them and face persecution. Lady Justice Laing found that this argument lacked the necessary evidential foundations. Country guidance did not support the proposition that Iranian authorities possessed sufficiently sophisticated surveillance systems to render that dilemma a real one, and there was no evidence that DA himself was aware of or feared any such systems. The argument, as Lord Justice Moylan observed during the hearing, was essentially hypothetical.

Lady Justice Laing declined to use the case as a vehicle for general guidance on sur place claims, observing that the issues were fact-specific and peculiar to this case.

DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 724. Adrian Berry KC and David Sellwood (Barnes Harrild & Dyer) for the appellant; Colin Thomann KC (Treasury Solicitor) for the respondent.