An Iraqi asylum seeker fears he will be murdered if he is deported from Britain – after the family of a woman he had an 18-month TikTok fling with ‘threatened to kill him’.
The unnamed man told a tribunal the family of his mystery female lover vowed to slaughter him back in his home country.
The alleged death threat came after he proposed to the woman, having met her in person just three times.
A judge initially refused the asylum application because his story seemed ‘incredible’ and ‘fabricated’.
But the Iraqi has now won an appeal which means his case will be heard again.
The hearing of the Asylum and Immigration tribunal was told heard the man, who was granted anonymity, began to talk to a woman referred to only as ‘HD’ on TikTok in 2020.
‘The contact lasted 18 months, during which they met in person on three occasions,’ the hearing was told. ‘ On the third occasion they were seen by HD’s family.
‘Thereafter, the [man]’s family asked HD’s family for permission to marry.
An Iraqi man is fighting against deportation from Britain – by claiming he is facing death in his home country the family of a woman he proposed to threatened to kill him (pictured is the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, Field House in London)
‘This was refused, as were two further efforts, the last eliciting a threat from HD’s family that any further requests would result in [him] being killed.
‘A few days later, [he] was approached by HD’s cousins who threatened to kill him.’
He claimed asylum in the UK in November 2021, having left Iraq the previous month.
His application was refused in October 2023 because of ‘inconsistencies’ in his narrative account.
The man’s appeal against this refusal was also rejected, meaning he could have been sent back to his home country where he claims he was threatened with death.
Details of the ruling – made in July last year – emerged at an appeal he made against the decision.
The judge who made the original ruling – who was not identified in the appeal judgement – said: ‘There is material in the papers about honour-based crimes.
‘I appreciate that these occur.
‘However, they generally relate to more significant events, such as resisting marriage and running away with someone.
‘I appreciate there are dangers in trying to make findings of what might happen in a different country.
The man claims to have met the woman on TikTok where the sparked their 18-month relationship – but he has no proof of this as he ‘lost his phone’
‘However, given that on his account they were only seen together once it seems incredible that her family would threaten to kill him.
‘His family were not on his account so intimidated that it put them off approaching the other family with repeated proposals of marriage.’
The judge said there was no evidence of the ‘online relationship’, that his claim was ‘fabricated’ and he was not ‘credible’.
The fact the ‘online relationship’ went on for a long time was also found to be ‘inconsistent with the account of a strict and controlling family’.
However, at the Upper Tier Tribunal, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Nathan Moxon and Judge Christopher Hanson found this judge did not give the evidence ‘a balanced consideration’.
This made the conclusion about the credibility of the man’s account ‘rationally insupportable or at the very least, unsupported’, they said.
Judge Moxon said the judge didn’t acknowledge it was only after the third proposal he was threatened.
The judge also ‘failed to acknowledge’ the man’s explanation for the lack of evidence of their online communication, which was he had ‘lost his mobile telephone’.
Judge Moxon concluded: ‘We are therefore satisfied that the identified error of law is material as there are not otherwise sufficient and cogent credibility findings made with reference to the available evidence.
‘Further, it would appear reasonable to conclude that the Judge’s assessment of the narrative account being incredible then infected his consideration of the [man]’s general credibility.
‘For those reasons we are satisfied that the Judge’s decision contained a material error of law.’
The case was sent back to a First-tier Tribunal in Glasgow, and a fresh hearing to determine whether he faces deportation will take place at a later date in front of a different judge.