Iraqi businessman denied entry to UK blames US interrogation nearly 20 years ago

A 72-year-old Iraqi businessman, identified as DNM for legal reasons, was denied entry to the United Kingdom to visit his son in March 2025, according to a recent court hearing. The denial cited the UK's public good as the reason, despite DNM's ownership of businesses and property in Iraq and his three grown-up children, one of whom is married with children residing in the UK.

DNM applied for a visa through the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), with his son representing him. The court commended his son's clear and well-directed representations. However, the commission returned the case to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood for reconsideration after finding that her officials had not adhered to their own guidelines during the decision-making process.

The SIAC concluded that the refusal was based primarily on the fact that DNM had been detained by US forces in April 2007 and held for 11 months during President George W. Bush's tenure. This detention occurred during a period of increased US combat troops in Iraq as part of the "surge" policy aimed at curbing violence. DNM's son testified that the questioning was brief and superficial, with his father not subjected to extensive interrogation or charges in Iraqi courts post-release.

DNM's family described his detention as traumatic, emphasizing that it would be particularly distressing for him to be denied entry to the UK. His uncle, who is also DNM's brother, was a policeman killed in a terrorist bombing. The SIAC acknowledged that national security reasons prevented the disclosure of specific evidence, but it criticized the government's handling of the case.

The commission highlighted that the decision to refuse the visa was not consistent with the requirements laid out in the refusal guidance. This guidance mandates a thorough and methodical approach, including an assessment of whether the individual poses a threat to the UK public, considering the nature and seriousness of the behavior, the potential difficulty the UK might face due to their admission, and the frequency of such behavior.

The SIAC deemed that the Home Secretary's officials did not adequately apply this guidance, indicating a lack of rigor in the initial rejection decision.