XX v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Risk arising from an Iranian returnee’s Facebook activity requires a nuanced, fact-sensitive assessment. The evidence did not establish large-scale Iranian monitoring of Facebook accounts. Targeted searches may, however, occur where a person is of significant adverse interest, assessed by their political profile, real-world activities and social graph.

Timely deletion of a critical Facebook account normally neutralises the resulting risk unless the account was already subject to targeted surveillance. Decision makers may consider whether a claimant will delete an account and not volunteer its prior existence, provided that inquiry is not impermissibly speculative. Social-media extracts without access to the underlying account may have little evidential weight.

The appellant, an Iranian Kurd, appealed against the refusal of his protection and human-rights claims. The First-tier Tribunal found that his claimed pre-flight political activity and support for PJAK were fabricated, and that his United Kingdom demonstrations and Facebook activity were opportunistic. It dismissed the appeal.

Upper Tribunal Judge Dawson set aside that decision only as to the risk arising from sur place activities. The preserved findings included that the appellant’s political motivation was contrived. On re-making, the Tribunal considered the Iranian authorities’ capacity to access Facebook material, the effect of account deletion, the emergency-travel-document process, and whether the appellant’s real-world and online activities nevertheless created a risk of persecution on return.

1. The appeal was allowed on asylum grounds. Although the appellant’s claimed support for PJAK and his sur place activities were contrived, the Tribunal found a real risk that his visible real-world activities and carefully cultivated Facebook profile had already brought him to the attention of the Iranian authorities.

2. The evidence did not show a reasonable likelihood of large-scale Iranian monitoring or automated extraction of Facebook data. Targeted and ad hoc searches were, however, feasible and likely to focus on persons of significant adverse interest. Assessment of that interest depends on political profile, demonstrations, publicity, real-world activity and the person’s social graph.

3. The existing country guidance in BA (Demonstrators in Britain – risk on return) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 36 (IAC), SSH and HR (illegal exit: failed asylum seeker) Iran CG [2016] UKUT 00308 (IAC) and HB (Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 00430 remained accurate. The Tribunal supplemented that guidance concerning Facebook use.

4. A Facebook account deleted at least 30 days before an emergency-travel-document application will ordinarily remove the risk arising solely from a critical account, unless its contents were already obtained through targeted surveillance. The absence or deletion of a Facebook account does not itself arouse suspicion. An emergency-travel-document application is nevertheless a likely point for basic internet searches.

5. Applying HJ (Iran) v SSHD [2011] AC 596, a decision maker may consider whether a claimant will close an account and refrain from volunteering its former existence. Deletion does not ordinarily suppress a protected Refugee Convention characteristic. The permissibility of such an inquiry depends on the facts and whether it is unduly speculative.

6. Here, deletion could not neutralise the risk because the appellant’s demonstrations, photographs with a prominent PJAK figure, public account and provocative material created a real risk of prior targeted surveillance. His Kurdish ethnicity and the material likely held by the authorities meant that he faced persecution for an imputed political opinion. His case was analogous to Danian v SSHD [1999] INLR 533.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Re-made the appeal and allowed it on asylum grounds.
• Upper Tribunal, Judge Dawson: Set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision solely as to the appellant’s sur place activities and resulting risk, while preserving findings concerning his pre-flight activities and contrived support for PJAK.
• First-tier Tribunal: Dismissed the appeal against the refusal of protection and human-rights claims.