Sonya Kalyan recently secured a significant victory before the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), successfully representing two Iraqi Kurdish brothers in linked asylum appeals. The case was both factually and legally complex, involving deeply rooted family, tribal, and political dynamics in the Kurdish region of Iraq. The outcome underscores the value of strategic case management, rigorous preparation, and fearless advocacy in crucial immigration litigation.
Due to the sensitive nature of the appeals, anonymity orders were granted to protect the appellants’ identities. Their names remain withheld in this article in accordance with Tribunal procedure and to ensure their safety.
Background and Factual Matrix
The brothers appealed refusals of their asylum claims, each grounded in a well-founded fear of persecution. Their fears stemmed from a longstanding family debt and a broken marriage arrangement with MB, a powerful figure affiliated with the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP). They also feared forced military recruitment and violent reprisals from MS, a senior official associated with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).
While the Home Office accepted their nationality and ethnicity, it disputed whether the brothers faced a personal risk, raising concerns about credibility and arguing that state protection or internal relocation were viable alternatives.
Legal Framework
The appeals were determined under the Refugee Convention, as it stood prior to the implementation of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The Convention protects individuals who are outside their country of nationality and unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a Particular Social Group. The applicable standard of proof, “a reasonable degree of likelihood” is lower than the criminal threshold but still demands consistency and credibility. See MAH (Egypt) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 216.
Strategic Use of Linked Appeals
Recognising that both claims arose from the same factual matrix, Sonya represented the brothers in linked appeals, ensuring a coherent and unified approach. With no conflict of interest, she was able to advocate vigorously for both clients throughout the proceedings. Linking the appeals allowed for consistent findings, reinforced credibility, and avoided duplication of evidence.
The case demanded meticulous fact-finding and careful handling of sensitive material, including detailed witness statements and live testimony delivered through Kurdish Sorani interpreters. Sonya maintained a clear focus on presenting a credible and consistent narrative, supported by extensive country guidance and legal authority.
Particular Social Group (PSG) and blood feud risk
The Tribunal relied on the Country Policy and Information Note: Iraq – Blood feuds, honour crimes and tribal violence (July 2024), which confirms that individuals caught in blood feuds may constitute a PSG.
Drawing on the authority of EH (Blood Feuds) Albania [2012] UKUT 348 (IAC), the Tribunal found that the brothers, as members of a Kurdish family embroiled in a violent dispute with Barzani and later Sangawi, clearly fell within such a group. The risk of targeted harm was real and ongoing.
State Protection and Internal Relocation
In assessing whether the Iraqi and Kurdistan Regional authorities could offer effective protection, the Tribunal applied the principles from Horvath [2000] UKHL 37. The evidence, including findings in SMO & KSP (Civil Status Documentation; Article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC), demonstrated that law enforcement in the region often avoids tribal disputes, sometimes takes sides, and operates within a system where corruption is rife. The Judge accepted that MS’s influence over the Kurdistan Regional Government rendered any approach to the authorities futile.
Internal relocation was also deemed unreasonable. The brothers spoke only Kurdish and had no connections in Arabic-speaking areas such as Baghdad. Moreover, the pervasive tribal influence and cooperation between the Iraqi and Kurdistan Regional governments meant there was no part of the country where they could genuinely be safe.
Advocacy in a complex legal context
Sonya’s advocacy was instrumental in navigating the legal and evidential complexities of the case. She addressed the Home Office’s challenges to credibility with precision, offering clear and persuasive explanations for any discrepancies, including those relating to financial figures and timelines. Her submissions demonstrated that the brothers’ membership of a PSG exposed them to blood feud violence, and that neither state protection nor internal relocation could mitigate the risk.
Sonya relied on up-to-date country guidance and relevant case law to substantiate the claims, ensuring that the Tribunal fully appreciated the lived realities and nuanced threats faced by the appellants.
Tribunal’s findings on credibility
The Tribunal made unusually strong credibility findings in favour of the brothers. It found them to be honest and reliable witnesses, whose accounts were internally consistent, inherently plausible, and supported by country evidence.
The Judge accepted their account in full, including their father’s debt to Barzani, the arranged marriages of their sisters to settle the debt, their decision to renege on that agreement and flee, their temporary refuge with MS, his coercion to join the peshmerga, and the death threats they received upon leaving. These events were corroborated by general country evidence on blood feuds, tribal honour disputes, and the political influence wielded by MS.
Although the brothers had not claimed asylum en-route to the UK, the Judge accepted their explanation and concluded that this did not undermine the core of their account.
Determination and legal outcome
Having considered all aspects of the case, the Tribunal concluded that both brothers had a genuine and well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. It found that they could not obtain protection from the Iraqi or Kurdistan Regional authorities, and that internal relocation was not a viable option. Their removal would breach the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In the alternative, removal would also breach Article 8 ECHR due to the very significant obstacles to reintegration.
Conclusion
This case illustrates the importance of comprehensive case management and fearless representation in asylum claims involving intersecting political, social, and familial complexities. Sonya’s approach, grounded in legal precision, cultural sensitivity, and strategic advocacy, was central to the successful outcome.
Sonya continues to accept instructions in complex immigration and asylum matters, including those involving linked appeals and challenging country contexts.
To instruct Sonya, please contact the chambers’ immigration clerk at immigration@halcyonchambers.com.
The views stated in this article belong to the writers in a personal capacity. No warranty is given, express or implied, in respect of the contents of this article. Nothing in this article is tendered as or is intended to be taken as legal advice and the contents should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice. Specialist legal advice should always be taken in every case noting that the application of the law may vary according to the individual facts of the case and the nature of the dispute.
