Iraqi asylum seekers are claiming they cannot return to their home country because his tattoo deviates from Islamic principles and thus wins rights in the UK.

An Iraqi asylum seeker has won the right to stay in the UK after claiming he was unable to return to his home country due to his tattoo.

The Kurd, who approved anonymity and was only appointed to AA, said he received violent reactions from his family, who believed that skin art had deviated from Islamic principles by changing God’s creation.

Initially, the Ministry of the Interior rejected his asylum claim on the basis that he could relocate internally, but now the asylum court ruled that he could stay and grant him refugee status.

After hearing that his father and uncle discovered his tattoos and even tried to burn them off his skin, he was forced to flee Iraq.

When that didn’t work, he later discovered that the two were going to kill him for humiliating the family.

The asylum seeker told the court that his brother helped him arrange the plane, including obtaining an AA passport that was usually kept with his father.

However, he was unable to use critical identification documents with him, including his Iraqi national ID, and now says he cannot return to his homeland because this lack of documentation puts him at risk of inhumane treatment.

Once in the UK, the AA made asylum and human rights claims, but those claims were rejected by the Home Office in November 2023 on the grounds that he could seek national protection or relocation in the country

Once in the UK, the AA made asylum and human rights claims, but the men were rejected by the Home Office in November 2023 on the grounds that he could seek national protection or relocation in the country.

In April 2024, asylum seekers used his father and uncle to have a good connection with Kurdistan (PUK), a political party that controls Iraq’s Kurdistan region, to be closely linked to his father and uncle.

He believes that means the two will be able to find him anywhere in the area.

He also insisted that he would be unable to return without the identity documents his father had. Neither his mother nor his brother could obtain them because of fear of his father.

The First-Level Court denied his stay in the UK, concluding that the state would not “invest a lot of resources” despite AA’s father and uncle taking photos with members of Puk, and that his mother could be reunited with his identity documents if he left his hometown area.

However, in a turnaround decision, the superior court has now appealed the decision.

Regarding the issue of ID card, Judge Makes Joshi found that if his mother or brother helped him get his ID card, they would be in danger and without it, he would likely experience inhumane human or degradation treatment in Iraq.

In a turnaround decision, the superior court has now approved the AA’s appeal against a previously rejected to allow him to hold refugee status

Judge Josh also decided that AA should be granted refugee status because he could be a victim of the crime of honor for his father and uncle (Photo: stock images)

Although the home office argued that the Kurds could ask his family to help him because they had helped him get his passport.

Judge Josh also decided that AA should be granted refugee status because he could become a victim of honor crimes at the hands of his father and uncle.

He said: “We further found that the appellant was a refugee.

‘[AA’s] The refugee claim is based on the risk of persecution that he will become a victim of a crime of honor.

‘this [First-tier Tribunal] The judge found that the appellant would face danger in his hometown because of the intention of the appellant’s father and uncle to harm his family.

The judge found that the appellant could relocate internally to avoid this risk.

In view of our findings [AA] If we do not encounter treatment or conditions contrary to Article 3 of ECHR, we find that he hopes he can expect him to relocate in IKR or elsewhere within Iraq, which is both too harsh and unreasonable. ”