Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/09563/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at North Shields
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 28th July 2016
On 8th August 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D E TAYLOR

Between

Ameen Ali Mejbel Al Azzawi Al-Azzawi
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs Sultani of Brar & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr M Diwnycz

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is the appellant's appeal against the decision of Judge Duff made following a hearing at North Shields on 12th April 2016.

Background
2. The appellant is a citizen of Iraq born on 15th October 1990. He is a Sunni Muslim and his family come from Mosul. He first arrived in the UK on 25th July 2013 as a student. He was granted an extension of his visa until 30th January 2015. He claimed asylum on 22nd January 2015.
3. The family fled Mosul when I.S took control there and managed to obtain work in Baghdad. On 22nd October 2015 his father was kidnapped and killed by members of a Shia militia. At the time of the hearing before the judge the appellant's remaining family were living in the same accommodation as before, although I am told that none of them remain there now. The appellant's mother is a teacher and his brother is a doctor. His younger brother and sister attend school.
4. The judge found the appellant to be an entirely credible witness. He did however conclude that he could safely return to Baghdad in the light of the country guidance case of AA (Article 15c) Iraq CG UKUT 00544. On that basis he dismissed the appeal.
The Grounds of Application
5. In very lengthy grounds the appellant challenged the judge's decision in relation to relocation to Baghdad. In the reasons for refusal letter the respondent had accepted that he could not return to Mosul and considered return to the KRG only. The judge recorded that the Home Office Presenting Officer resiled from the position set out in the reasons for refusal letter, since the latest CG case law expressly states that relocation to Kurdistan was not possible. The grounds argue both that the judge's conclusions in relation to return to Baghdad are not adequately reasoned and that the judge had erred in seeking to go behind a concession in the reasons for refusal letter contrary to the principles set out in the case of Carcabuk and Bla v SSHD 00/TH/01426 in which the Tribunal held that an Adjudicator was bound by a concession by a Home Office Presenting Officer.
6. Permission to appeal was granted by Judge Ransley for the reasons stated in the grounds on 4th May 2016.
7. On 20th May 2016 the respondent served a reply defending the determination.
Findings and Conclusions
8. Although Ms Sultani sought to maintain the arguments put forward in her grounds and submitted that the judge had not properly got to grips with the situation of the family in Baghdad, she could not properly claim that the appellant had in any way been prejudiced by the Presenting Officer's submission that return to Baghdad was feasible. No application for an adjournment was made by the legal representative at the hearing. There was no concession in the reasons for refusal letter, that the appellant would be returned solely to the KRG, and certainly not that the appellant could not be safely returned to Baghdad. Whilst it is right that the reasons for refusal letter did consider a return to the KRG, the respondent was entitled to consider an alternative place of relocation in the light of the promulgation of AA which postdated the reasons for refusal letter.
9. The remaining grounds seek to reargue the appellant's case that he would be at risk on return in Baghdad, but at the date of the hearing it cannot be said that the judge erred in his conclusions which were entirely in line with the country guidance.
10. In fact the situation there has changed yet again, and since the determination was promulgated, there have been more atrocities. Furthermore the appellant has been found to be entirely credible and it appears that his family are no longer in Iraq and would not be in a position to offer him support on return.
11. However that was not information before the Immigration Judge and should properly be put to the Secretary of State in the form of a fresh application.
Notice of Decision

The original judge did not err in law and his decision stands. The appellant's appeal is dismissed.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 7 August 2016
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Taylor