Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/03170/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Birmingham CJC
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On the 28 June 2022
On the 21 July 2022

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON

Between

SHZA
(Anonymity direction made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Bradshaw instructed by Central England Law Centre
For the Respondent: Mr Williams a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This matter returns to the Upper Tribunal following an earlier decision having been set aside by the Court of Appeal in an order sealed on 8 February 2019.
2. The parties before that Court of Appeal agreed the appeal should be allowed to the extent that the matter is remitted to the Upper Tribunal for a de novo hearing, which occurred before me today.
3. It is not disputed the appellant is a citizen of Iraq born on the 14 January 1995 who originates from Kirkuk.
4. Since the Court of Appeal hearing there has been a further country guidance case relating to Iraq, reported as SMO & KSP [2022] UKUT 00110.
5. There has also been a further development in the Secretary of State’s policies relating to returns in that enforced returns now occur to any airport within Iraq, including those within the IKR.
6. I accept there is an international airport in Kirkuk but there was no evidence before the Tribunal that there are direct flights to that venue that the respondent can use to return to there.
7. It was accepted in light of the lack of evidence of the ability to return directly to Kirkuk that enforced return of the appellant would take place to the IKR.
8. It cannot be disputed that the appellant be able to fly to an airport in the IKR with a laissez-passer issued by the Iraqi authorities in the UK and, as an Iraqi Kurd, will be able to pass through the airport without facing any real risk.
9. The issue in the appeal is what will happen next. The appellant requires a CSID or IND to enable him to function within Iraqi society, of which he has neither. That point was conceded before me.
10. The CSA office at which the appellant’s details are registered is that in Kirkuk City to where he will be required to travel to attend in person to provide biometrics and to obtain required documentation.
11. There are between the IKR and Kirkuk check points as referred to in the CIPU. Those manning checkpoints are unlikely to allow the appellant to pass through without appropriate documentation proving who he is. This point was also conceded before me.
12. In SMO & KSP there is reference to an undertaking by the Secretary of State to check with the authorities in Iraq whether an individual’s CSA office still issues the CSID, which may enable a replacement to be obtained, or not. Mr Williams was able to confirm that an enquiry had been made of the authorities in Iraq in April 2022 for a list providing this information, in relation to which a response was still awaited. There was, therefore, no evidence available that the CSA office in Kirkuk still issues CSID’s.
13. In light of the factual history, country guidance caselaw, and the Secretary of State’s current position statement, and lack of evidence of the ability to return directly to Kirkuk, it was accepted the appellant must succeed with his claim on the basis of being an undocumented Iraqi national.

Decision

14. I allow the appeal.

Anonymity.

15. The First-tier Tribunal made an order pursuant to rule 45(4)(i) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005.

I make such order pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

Signed……………………………………………….
Upper Tribunal Judge Hanson

Dated 28 June 2022