Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/02302/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 4th October 2016
On 5th October 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant

and

Miss SHAYMAA [K]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mrs R Pettersen (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)
For the Respondent: Mr J Nicholson (instructed by Immigration Advice Service)

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal, with permission, by the Secretary of State in relation to a Decision and Reasons of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Williams) promulgated on 1st July 2016 by which he allowed the Appellant's appeal against the Secretary of State's decision to refuse her protection claim.

2. For the sake of continuity and clarity I will continue to refer to Miss [K] as the Appellant and the Secretary of State as the Respondent in this judgement.

3. The Secretary of State was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the basis that it was arguable that the Judge materially erred in law regarding whether the Appellant needed to obtain a CSID if she had a passport. Permission to appeal was also granted on other grounds which were that the Judge erred in failing to find that the Appellant's deception to the immigration officer on arrival was damaging to her general credibility and in failing to find reasons why internal relocation would be unduly harsh.

4. A reading of the Decision and Reasons reveals the grounds to be without merit. The First-tier Tribunal Judge set out the Appellant's claim. She is an Iraqi national who lived in Mosul, which is under the control of IS. For the first 10 months of their control she had no problems. However, on 20th April 2015, 5-6 IS combatants came to her home and took her husband away saying that he was an informant/spy for the Iraqi army. He was not. The Appellant never saw her husband again.

5. Initially, when this happened the Appellant went to see her mother. She could not seek police assistance as they were involved with IS.

6. After 4-5 days the Appellant returned to her home but IS returned, threatening that she needed to marry and that they would take her with them for this purpose. She prevaricated saying she would agree later and as soon as they left she left to go to stay with her mother and she remained in hiding until she left Iraq on 18th June 2015.

7. It was the Appellant's case before the First-tier Tribunal that she could not return to Mosul as it is an area controlled by IS. As a lone woman with an infant child (born November 2015) she could not be expected to relocate to Baghdad where she had no support and no family. She was a minority Sunni Muslim and furthermore she would be unable to obtain a CSID card because although she had a passport she would need to go to Mosul to get one and that she could not do.

8. The Secretary of State did not challenge the Appellant's version of events. The Secretary of State's assertion that because she had a passport she would not require a CSID card is not borne out by the country guidance contained in AA (article 15 (c)) Iraq CG [2015] UKUT 00544 (IAC).

9. Paragraph 12 of the head note to AA states:-

"Where return is feasible but P does not have a CSID, P should as a general matter be able to obtain one from the Civil Status Affairs Office for P's home Governorate, using an Iraqi passport (whether current or expired), if P has one."

10. At paragraph 13 of the head note to AA it is stated:-

"P's ability to obtain a CSID is likely to be severely hampered if P is unable to go to the Civil Status Affairs Office of P's Governorate because it is an area where article 15 (c) serious harm is occurring. As a result of the violence, alternative CSA offices from Mosul and Anbar and Saluhaddin have been established in Baghdad and Kerbala. The evidence does not demonstrate that the "Central Archive", which exists in Baghdad, is in practice able to provide CSID's to those in need of them. There is, however, a National Status Court in Baghdad, to which P could apply for formal recognition of identity. The precise operation of this Court is, however, unclear."

11. It is clear therefore that a passport is not an alternative to a CSID but is the means by which one can be obtained, providing it is safe to go to the home Governorate. It is by no means clear that the alternative in Baghdad is feasible.

12. In terms of internal relocation within Iraq for this Appellant, as it is clear she cannot return to Mosul, it being the hands of IS. The country guidance case deals with internal relocation in the head note from paragraph 14 where it states:-

"As a general matter, it will not be unreasonable or unduly harsh for a person from a contested area to relocate to Baghdad City or (subject to paragraph 2 above) the Baghdad Belts".

13. At paragraph 15 the head not states:-

"In assessing whether it would be unreasonable/unduly harsh for P to relocate to Baghdad, the following factors are, however, likely to be relevant:

a. whether P has a CSI D or will be able to obtain one

b. whether P can speak Arabic (those who cannot are less likely to find employment);

c. whether P has family members or friends in Baghdad able to accommodate him;

d. whether P is a lone female (women face greater difficulties than men in finding employment);

e. whether P can find a sponsor to access a hotel room or rent accommodation;

f. whether p is from a minority community;

g. whether there is support available for P bearing in mind there is some evidence that returned failed asylum seekers are provided with the support generally given to IDP's."

14. The judge gave consideration to these matters in the Decision and Reasons. It is clear that the Appellant in this case would not have a CSID nor would she be able to obtain one.

15. Her ability to obtain employment is severely hampered by her infant child. She has no family members or friends in Baghdad and is a lone female. There was no suggestion that she could find a sponsor and she is a member of a minority community, mainly Sunni Muslims. For those reasons the judge found that it would be unduly harsh for this Appellant to relocate to Baghdad.

16. I can find no error in his reasoning nor can I find that he took any immaterial matters into account or failed to take into account material matters.

17. Miss Pattersen was unable to take me to any other potential errors.

18. Any deception on arrival, which the First-tier Tribunal found explained by her circumstances, cannot alter the conclusion.

19. Accordingly, the Secretary of State's appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed as the Decision and Reasons of the First-tier Tribunal contains no error of law material or otherwise.

20. There was no application for an anonymity direction and I see no justification for making one.

Signed Date 4th October 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Martin