Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: LP/00047/2020
PA/50161/2019

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford Via MS Teams
On the 6 April 2022
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On the 10 May 2022

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE

Between

GOVAR BAKR HASSAN
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Dosanjh
For the Respondent: Ms Young, Senior Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a Kurdish citizen of Iraq who was born on 28 April 1998. He appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision of the Secretary of State dated 23 October 2019 refusing his claim for international protection. The First-tier Tribunal, in a decision dated 20 August 2020, dismissed his appeal. The appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
2. Permission was refused in the First-tier Tribunal but granted on a renewed application to the Upper Tribunal (Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell). Permission was granted on one ground only, namely that the First-tier Tribunal had arguably failed to explain, in the light of SMO, KSP and IM (Article 15(c); identity documents) Iraq CG [2019] UKUT 400, how it believed that the appellant could re-document himself (i.e. obtain a CSID or INID card). Judge Blundell observed that ‘the finding that the appellant could enlist the assistance of his family [in Iraq] was arguably not determinative of that question.’ Judge Blundell made it clear that the other ground of appeal (which sought to challenge the judge’s assessment of the appellant’s credibility) was not arguable. The grant of permission is compliant with the decision of Safi and others (permission to appeal decisions) [2018] UKUT 388 (IAC).
3. At the remote initial hearing, Mr Dosanjh appeared for the appellant and did so at very short notice. I am grateful to him for his assistance. Ms Young appeared for the Secretary of State.
4. The appeal turns on whether the First-tier Tribunal found that the appellant has an existing CSID or whether he has no CSID either in Iraq or in the United Kingdom and would, therefore, have to apply for a replacement identity document either before he travels to Iraq or upon arrival there.
5. Before I consider that central issue, I have considered whether the judge’s finding that the appellant would have the support finding his family in Iraq or whether, as the appellant claims, he has lost touch with them. At [22], the judge gives several clear and cogent reasons for rejecting the appellant’s claim to have lost contact with his family, having directed himself to exercise caution ‘in reaching this adverse finding’. As with the other credibility findings which the appellant has not been given permission to challenge, I can find no reason to interfere with the judge’s finding on this issue. I proceed, therefore, on the basis that the appellant can and will contact his family and ask for their assistance both before leaving for Iraq and upon arrival there and that assistance will be forthcoming.
6. As regards the question of the identity document, I note that the judge has referred more than once to at [30] and [32] to the appellant being able to obtain ‘a CSID’ as opposed to ‘his’ CSID. The use of the indefinite article might indicate that the judge had in mind that the appellant would need to re-document himself. However, the appellant’s own evidence on this point is unequivocal. As the judge records at [2], the appellant claims that he ‘left his CSID at home when he fled.’ In a submission which I accept, Ms Young argued that, given he is in touch with his family who live in the place where the appellant’s home is situated and given also that the judge found his family will assist the appellant, it follows that the family can find the CSID in the appellant’s home and send it to him in the United Kingdom by post before he departs for Iraq. Consequently, the question of re-documentation does not arise.
7. Although it would have been helpful if the judge had made it clear that the appellant is able to gain possession of his own existing CSID, I am satisfied that the judge did not engage with the problems of re-documentation discussed in the country guidance of SMO, KSP and IM (Article 15(c);identity documents) Iraq CG [20199] UKUT 400 because he was aware that the appellant could regain possession of his identity document. The judge did not err in law for the reasons advanced in the grounds of appeal or at all. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Notice of Decision

The appeal is dismissed.

Signed
Date 1 May 2022
Upper Tribunal Judge Lane