Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2022-002278

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/51841/2021

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 17 June 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MANDALIA

Between

MTA
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation
For the Appellant: Ms S Jegarajah, instructed by MBM Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms S Cunha, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 27 January 2025
Decision and Reasons
As the underlying claim to this appeal concerns a claim for international protection, pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity. 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.
Introduction
1. The appellant is a national of Iraq. His appeal against the respondent’s decision of 27 July 2020 was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal (“FtT) Judge Abebrese for reasons set out in a decision promulgated on 19 June 2022.
2. The decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese was set aside by me for reasons set out in an ‘error of law’ decision issued on 20 October 2022. For the avoidance of any doubt, I directed that the following findings set out in the decision of Judge Abebrese are preserved.
i. Paragraph [24]; the appellant does have relatives in Iraq on his mother’s side of the family residing in Mosul, and it is reasonable for him to seek assistance from them. The appellant’s claim that they are not in a position to assist him is rejected.
ii. The findings set out at paragraphs [25] to [28] regarding the appellant’s Article 8 claim.
3. In my error of law decision I directed that the appellant’s representatives were to be responsible for compiling and serving an agreed consolidated bundle of documents which both parties can rely on at the hearing, no less than 7 days before the resumed hearing. The appeal was listed for hearing on 24 November 2023 and it became apparent that the appellant’s representatives had done nothing since my error of law decision resulting in the absence of a consolidated bundle. On 24 November 2023, a panel of the Upper Tribunal directed that the appellant shall begin work immediately on preparing a consolidated bundle of all the evidence he relies upon, and the respondent should be permitted an opportunity to add to the bundle. The appellant’s representatives were directed to file and serve the agreed consolidated bundle by 5pm on 20 December 2023. The hearing of the appeal was adjourned to the first available date in January or February 2024.
4. The appeal was listed for hearing before me on 16 September 2024. The appellant’s representatives had again failed to comply with the Directions issued by the Upper Tribunal. The Directions issued set out a clear timetable for filing and serving the consolidated bundle. Mr Fahmy Mohideen Bawa Mohamed, the Director and Principal of MBM Solicitors appeared before me on 16 September 2024 and explained that this is the first appeal in which the firm has been required to file and serve a consolidated bundle using CE-File. Steps are now taken by the firm to ensure that all directions made by the Tribunal are complied with. I have reminded Mr Mohamed of the need to comply with the directions issued and that in the future, non-compliance, absent good reason, is likely to be met with sanctions.
5. On 16 September 2024, I heard evidence from the appellant and submissions from counsel, Ms S Jegarajah on behalf of the appellant and from Ms S McKenzie, a Senior Presenting Officer who appeared on behalf of the respondent. Although it was apparent that the appellant’s representatives had failed to comply with directions made, the hearing of the appeal went ahead nevertheless. Having heard the evidence and submissions, I reserved my decision.
6. Although the issue is in the appeal focuses upon the availability of identity documents, there is an issue, as Upper Tribunal Judge Norton-Taylor noted in his directions issued to the parties on 27 November 2023, regarding the appellant’s home area and whether that is Baghdad or elsewhere. That is relevant to my consideration of whether the appellant is able to return to his home area and the question of internal relocation. The information provided by the appellant previously in any screening interview, asylum interview and in statements will be relevant. Similarly, the previous decisions of the Courts and Tribunals upon the appellant’s international protection claim are likely to be my ‘starting point’.
7. In the absence of the relevant material and evidence in that respect, I directed that the appeal be listed for a further haring before me on 27 January 2025.
The Evidence
8. The appellant attended the hearing before me on 16 September 2024 and gave evidence. He adopted his witness statement dated 18 December 2023 and confirmed the content of that statement is true and correct. The appellant confirms that he was born and raised in Baghdad. He has exhibited a copy of a CSID card that he states was issued on 23 May 2006. He claims to have lost the original “around early 2007”, but did not know the procedure for reporting that to the police. The appellant confirms his parents and brother are now living in the UK. He was tendered for cross-examination.
9. The appellant confirmed his parents have visited Iraq but he claimed that he could not remember when that was. He said they were there for about two weeks and stayed in the north, in Erbil. The appellant said his parents visited Erbil and had travelled directly to the airport in Erbil. He claims he did not ask them whether they were able to travel around Erbil freely. The appellant confirmed that the maternal side of his family are in the north, but claimed that his parents did not spend any time with them because “they have no connection with them”. He accepted that his mother had given evidence before FtT Judge Abebrese that she has three brothers and one sister who live in Mosul. When asked when his mother had last spoken to her family, the appellant simply said that she does not speak to them. The appellant said that he has not spoken to any of his siblings or brother-in-law since leaving Iraq. He claimed that he has had not had contact with them since 2011.
10. To clarify matters I asked the appellant if he could indicate roughly when his parents had visited Iraq. He claimed it was about four years ago but went on to say that ”it was after the Covid Pandemic. He confirmed that he lives with his parents and was living with them when they visited Erbil. He did not however know what the purpose of their visit was, but when pressed, said that they had gone to find out whether there is any news about his sisters. He said that his sisters were living in Baghdad. He claimed that his parents had remained in Erbil throughout their visit and they had stayed in a hotel. He maintained that his mother has no contact with her family and claimed that she had last spoken to them in or about 2004/5. The appellant claimed that he had last spoken to his own siblings in 2009. In 2010 they fled the house to safety, but did not say where they were going. There was no re-examination.
11. In readiness for the further hearing before me on 27 January 2025, the respondent provided an outline of the respondent’s submissions set out in a letter dated 24 January 2025. The respondent also provided a copy of the ‘Statement of Evidence Form’ (“SEF”) and record of interview completed on 20 May 2009. The appellant confirmed that his last address in Iraq was in ‘Nissan District, Baghdad’. The appellant claimed at the time (Q. 2) that he did not bring any documents with him from Iraq to confirm his identity or nationality. He confirmed again in interview that he had always lived in Baghdad (Q. 56) and said that he has extended family including his maternal grandfather living in Mosul (Q. 57 & 58). The appellant claimed his maternal family in Mosul are Sunni Muslim and he is a Shia Muslim. He said (Q.65) that in Baghdad he lived in an area where the majority are Shia Muslims. The appellant claimed (Q.123 to 127) that since 2000 his paternal grandfather, who lived in Baghdad, had supported the family.
The Hearing Before Me on 27 January 2025
12. Although in the directions I had issued I had made it clear that the appropriate course is for me to allow the parties an opportunity to provide the relevant material that was missing to the Tribunal, and for me to hear any further evidence and or submissions that the parties may wish the Tribunal to consider, at the outset of the hearing, Ms Jegarajah confirmed the appellant was not going to be called to give further evidence. She proposed to address the issues based on the evidence before the Tribunal.
13. For the avoidance of any doubt, I confirmed that I now have before me a copy of the SEF interview record of the appellant’s interview on 20 May 2009. I also have a copy of the decision of Immigration Judge Robson promulgated on 11 October 2009, the decision of Senior Immigration Judge Spencer dated 27 August 2009 making no order on an application for reconsideration, and the order of Mr Justice Mitting dated 22 February 2010 dismissing the application for reconsideration.
14. Ms Jegarajah also clarified that contrary to what is said in paragraph [1] of my error of law decision issued on 24 October 2022, the appellant is not of Kurdish ethnicity. The appellant is an Iraqi national who was born and raised in Baghdad. He is a Shia Muslim. The position as far as his family is concerned, remains as set out in the appellant’s witness statement dated 18 December 2023. His parents and bother live in the UK. His sister’s remain ‘missing’ in Iraq, and he has no information about their whereabouts.
15. Ms Jegarajah submits the appellant has now been away from Iraq for several years. She submits the respondent has not established that the INID system operates in Baghdad and the appellant cannot be returned to Iraq because he does not have a passport. She claims that in any event, on arrival in Iraq the appellant would be at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 when travelling from the airport to the relevant office. She submits that on arrival in Baghdad, the appellant would be unable to get to a ‘reasonably accessible office’ that would issue an INID card, and the appellant would therefore be at risk upon return.
16. In reply, Ms Cunha adopts the written submissions as set out by the respondent in writing on 24 January 2025. The core of the appellant’s claim for international protection was rejected by Immigration Judge Robson for the reasons set out in the decision promulgated on 11 October 2009. Immigration Judge Robson found the appellant’s “whole story is totally without foundation and is a complete fabrication”. She submits the appellant has a history of being untruthful. On arrival in the UK, when interviewed on 20 May 2009, he claimed that he did not bring any documents with him to prove his identity or nationality. He has now provided a copy of a CSID that he claims he lost in 2007. She submits the appellant is capable of being untruthful. She submits the appellant will be returned to Baghdad. A Laissez Passer will enable the appellant to travel to Baghdad and as the appellant is a Shia Muslim from Baghdad, the question of him having to travel to his extended family in Mosul will not arise. The appellant will be able to go to the local office to provide his biometrics and secure an INID. The appellant will have access to services and he will not be at risk. Ms Cunha referred to the CPIN: internal relocation, civil documentation and returns, Iraq, October 2023. She also refers to an announcement made by the Iraqi Embassy, London on 17 October 2024 that appointments are now available to apply for an INDI (in a trial commencing 21 October 2024) provided the individual has one of a number of documents that includes, inter alia, a CSID, or proof of identity. In fact, on 11 November 2024, the Iraqi Embassy also announced the use of a ‘portable system for issuing a national ID card, for an additional fee. The purpose of that is said to be to visit the applicant’s residence to input personal information, take a photo, and capture biometric data.
17. In reply, Ms Jegarajah submits that in SMO & KSP (Civil status documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 00110 (IAC) (“SMO & Others II”), the Tribunal said, at headnote [13]:
“Notwithstanding the phased transition to the INID within Iraq, replacement CSIDs remain available through Iraqi Consular facilities but only for those Iraqi nationals who are registered at a CSA office which has not transferred to the digital INID system. Where an appellant is able to provide the Secretary of State with the details of the specific CSA office at which he is registered, the Secretary of State is prepared to make enquiries with the Iraqi authorities in order to ascertain whether the CSA office in question has transferred to the INID system.”
18. Ms Jegarajah submits the appellant provided relevant information to the respondent regarding the CSID that he previously had, and the respondent was under an obligation to ascertain whether the CSA office in Baghdad has transferred to the INID system. In SMO and Others II, the Tribunal confirmed, at [114], that a Laissez Passer is of no assistance for onward travel in Iraq.
Decision
19. In reaching my decision I have had regard to all the evidence before me, whether or not it is referred to. I have also had regard to the submissions made by the representatives both in writing and orally before me although I do not consider it necessary to address everything that is said.
20. The appellant has appealed under s82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 against the decision of the respondent to refuse his claim for asylum and humanitarian protection. The appellant bears the burden of establishing his claim to the lower standard. Although there was also an appeal against the respondent’s decision to refuse the Article 8 claim made by the appellant, as I have previously recorded, the findings set out at paragraphs [25] to [28] of the decision of FtT Judge Abebrese regarding the appellant’s Article 8 claim are preserved and the appellant’s appeal on Article 8 grounds remains dismissed.
21. As there has been a previous judicial decision regarding the appellant’s claim for international protection, the guidelines set out in Devaseelan v SSHD [2003] Imm AR 1 are relevant. In a decision promulgated on 11 October 2009, Immigration Judge Robson considered the appellant’s claim that he had received threats from the Al-Mehdi Army because he had been working for “a company that belonged to the Americans”. Immigration Judge Robson referred to inconsistencies in the appellant’s account and rejected the appellant’s claim that the inconsistencies were attributable to an error in ‘interpretation’. Immigration Judge Robson said:
“46. In summary and based upon my findings above I find that his whole story is totally without foundation and is a complete fabrication and thus I conclude that the claim for refugee status fails and there is no evidence to support his contention that he will be persecuted or indeed suffer death or serious harm because of imputed political opinion.
47. I do not find looking at the evidence in the round and taking into account the appropriate definitions of the Qualification Regulations that the appellant’s removal from the United Kingdom as a consequence of the immigration decision, in his case, his return to Iraq will expose him to a real risk of persecution. I find he is not entitled to refugee status.”
22. For present purposes it is sufficient to note that the decision of Judge Robson stands as an authoritative assessment of the claim that the appellant was making at the time (2009). I can consider and make my own assessment of facts that have occurred since the decision of Judge Robson. There is nothing in the evidence before me that undermines the findings previously made regarding the core of the appellant’s account. I have no reason to depart from those findings.
23. More recently, FtT Judge Abebrese considered the appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s decision of 28 July 2020. The focus of that appeal was upon the appellant’s Article 8 claim and the availability of documents required for the appellant’s removal to Iraq. Although the decision of Judge Abebrese was set aside for the reasons set out in my error of law decision, there is a preserved finding that the appellant does have maternal relatives in Iraq residing in Mosul, and it is reasonable for him to seek assistance from them. His claim that they are not in a position to assist him has previously been rejected.
24. I am left with the appellant’s profile. I find the appellant was born and raised in Baghdad, he speaks Arabic and is a Shia Muslim. He is a single male. The appellant confirmed he last lived in Baghdad when he was interviewed on 20 May 2009 and confirms in his witness statement that he was born and raised in the Al Baladiyat district, Al Rusafa, Baghdad.
25. The appellant’s parents have been able to travel to Iraq. When asked about his parents’ last visit to Iraq, the evidence of the appellant was vague and I do not accept he was being honest or candid in his evidence. He claimed they stayed in the North, in Erbil, but they spent no time with his extended maternal family. Although the appellant lives with his parents, he claimed he did not know the purpose of their visit or how they were able to travel around through checkpoints. When pressed, the appellant claimed his parents had travelled to Iraq to find out whether there is any news about his sisters. However, he accepted that his sister’s had lived in Baghdad. The appellant was unable to explain what enquiries his parents were able to make regarding the whereabouts of his sisters from Erbil, and why his parents had remained in Erbil if the purpose of the visit was to find his sister’s who had lived in Baghdad. I also note that both the appellant and his mother gave evidence before FtT Judge Abebrese on 17 March 2022. At paragraph [14] of the decision, Judge Abebrese records the evidence of the appellant’s mother. She claimed that when she visited Iraq, they stayed in Baghdad, albeit she was, like the appellant before me, vague on the details of the visits. At paragraph [15] Judge Abebrese records the evidence of the appellant’s mother that when the appellant’s parents went to Iraq “they did not do anything to try to contact their daughter”. Judge Abebrese did not find that part of her evidence to be credible.
26. I reject the appellant’s claim that he has no contact with his sister’s and brother-in-law, who he claims have gone missing. I find the appellant’s parents have been able to travel to Iraq, and as the appellant’s mother claimed in her evidence before Judge Abebrese, they stayed in Baghdad. I do not accept the appellant and his family have no on-going connections to Baghdad. It was plainly safe enough for the appellant’s parents to travel to Baghdad and I find they did so, to visit their daughter’s, the appellant’s sisters.
27. I also reject the appellant’s claim that he is not in possession of his CSID. When interviewed on 20 May 2009, the appellant was clear that he did not have any documents with him from Iraq to prove his identity or nationality. The appellant has now provided a copy of his CSID that is said to have been issued on 23 May 2006. The appellant claims he lost the CSID in early 2007. The appellant has provided a ‘picture’ of his CSID but he offers no explanation as to how he was able to provide a copy of the CSID. I find, to the lower standard, that the appellant is in possession of his CSID, or has access to it.
28. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, in SMO and Others II, the Upper Tribunal set out the following guidance:
“A INDISCRIMINATE VIOLENCE IN IRAQ: ARTICLE 15(C) OF THE QUALIFICATION DIRECTIVE
1. There continues to be an internal armed conflict in certain parts of Iraq, involving government forces, various militia and the remnants of ISIL. Following the military defeat of ISIL at the end of 2017 and the resulting reduction in levels of direct and indirect violence, however, the intensity of that conflict is not such that, as a general matter, there are substantial grounds for believing that any civilian returned to Iraq, solely on account of his presence there, faces a real risk of being subjected to indiscriminate violence amounting to serious harm within the scope of Article 15(c) QD.
…
B DOCUMENTATION AND FEASIBILITY OF RETURN (EXCLUDING IKR)
7. Return of former residents of the Iraqi Kurdish Region (IKR) will be to the IKR and all other Iraqis will be to Baghdad. The Iraqi authorities will allow an Iraqi national (P) in the United Kingdom to enter Iraq only if P is in possession of a current or expired Iraqi passport relating to P, or a Laissez Passer.
8. No Iraqi national will be returnable to Baghdad if not in possession of one of these documents.
9. In the light of the Court of Appeal's judgment in HF (Iraq) and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1276, an international protection claim made by P cannot succeed by reference to any alleged risk of harm arising from an absence of a current or expired Iraqi passport or a Laissez passer, if the Tribunal finds that P's return is not currently feasible on account of a lack of any of those documents.
10. Where P is returned to Iraq on a Laissez Passer or expired passport, P will be at no risk of serious harm at the point of return by reason of not having a current passport.
…
C CIVIL STATUS IDENTITY DOCUMENTATION
11. The CSID is being replaced with a new biometric Iraqi National Identity Card – the INID. As a general matter, it is necessary for an individual to have one of these two documents in order to live and travel within Iraq without encountering treatment or conditions which are contrary to Article 3 ECHR. Many of the checkpoints in the country are manned by Shia militia who are not controlled by the GOI and are unlikely to permit an individual without a CSID or an INID to pass.
12. In order to obtain an INID, an individual must personally attend the Civil Status Affairs (“CSA”) office at which they are registered to enrol their biometrics, including fingerprints and iris scans. The CSA offices in which INID terminals have been installed are unlikely – as a result of the phased replacement of the CSID system – to issue a CSID, whether to an individual in person or to a proxy. The reducing number of CSA offices in which INID terminals have not been installed will continue to issue CSIDs to individuals and their proxies upon production of the necessary information.
13. Notwithstanding the phased transition to the INID within Iraq, replacement CSIDs remain available through Iraqi Consular facilities but only for those Iraqi nationals who are registered at a CSA office which has not transferred to the digital INID system. Where an appellant is able to provide the Secretary of State with the details of the specific CSA office at which he is registered, the Secretary of State is prepared to make enquiries with the Iraqi authorities in order to ascertain whether the CSA office in question has transferred to the INID system.
14. Whether an individual will be able to obtain a replacement CSID whilst in the UK also depends on the documents available and, critically, the availability of the volume and page reference of the entry in the Family Book in Iraq, which system continues to underpin the Civil Status Identity process. Given the importance of that information, some Iraqi citizens are likely to recall it. Others are not. Whether an individual is likely to recall that information is a question of fact, to be considered against the factual matrix of the individual case and taking account of the background evidence. The Family Book details may also be obtained from family members, although it is necessary to consider whether such relatives are on the father’s or the mother’s side because the registration system is patrilineal.
15. Once in Iraq, it remains the case that an individual is expected to attend their local CSA office in order to obtain a replacement document. All CSA offices have now re-opened, although the extent to which records have been destroyed by the conflict with ISIL is unclear, and is likely to vary significantly depending on the extent and intensity of the conflict in the area in question.
16. An individual returnee who is not from Baghdad is not likely to be able to obtain a replacement document there, and certainly not within a reasonable time. Neither the Central Archive nor the assistance facilities for IDPs are likely to render documentation assistance to an undocumented returnee.
17. A valid Iraqi passport is not recognised as acceptable proof of identity for internal travel by land.
18. Laissez Passers are confiscated on arrival and will not, for that reason, assist a returnee who seeks to travel from Baghdad to the IKR by air without a passport, INID or CSID. The Laissez Passer is not a recognised identity document for the purpose of internal travel by land.
…
D. INTERNAL RELOCATION WITHIN GOI-CONTROLLED IRAQ
…
25. Relocation to Baghdad. Baghdad is generally safe for ordinary civilians but whether it is safe for a particular returnee is a question of fact in the individual case. There are no on-entry sponsorship requirements for Baghdad but there are sponsorship requirements for residency. A documented individual of working age is likely to be able to satisfy those requirements. Relocation to Baghdad is likely to be reasonable for Arab Shia and Sunni single, able-bodied men and married couples of working age without children and without specific vulnerabilities. Other individuals are likely to require external support, ie a support network of members of his or her family, extended family or tribe, who are willing and able to provide genuine support. Whether such a support network is available is to be considered with reference to the collectivist nature of Iraqi society, as considered in AAH (Iraqi Kurds – internal relocation) CG [2018] UKUT 212.
…”
29. Ms Jegarajah submits the appellant’s enforced return could only be to Baghdad and that as the CPIN confirms, at [3.2.3], an undocumented person would not be able to travel internally from their airport of arrival to Mosul without being at risk of encountering treatment or conditions which are contrary to paragraphs 339C and 339CA(iii) of the Immigration Rules/Article 3 ECHR at the various security checkpoints along the route.
30. In SA (Removal destination, Iraq, Undertakings) [2022] UKUT 00037, the Upper Tribunal said that the SSHD should, where possible, identify the place to which she intends to enforce removal; that location provides the proper focus for the issues which arise in the appeal. Ms Cunha submits the appellant is from Baghdad and will be returned to Baghdad.
31. Annex B of the respondent’s CPIN: internal relocation, civil documentation and returns, Iraq, October 2023, confirms that there is no interview requirement for the enforced return of a failed asylum seeker. In order for the Iraqi Embassy to issue a Laissez Passer, the individual will need to hold at least one (copy or original, valid or expired) document, that includes, inter alia, a CSID. The embassy verification process tends to take 10-14 days, and there is currently an agreement to enforce the return of single males. Annex C confirms failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders can now be returned to any airport in Federal Iraq and the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. It is clear therefore that a Laissez Passer can be obtained. I have found that the appellant is in possession of his CSID or has access to it. In any event, the appellant has a copy of his CSID at the very least, and that is sufficient in itself for a Laissez Passer to be obtained.
32. As the guidance set out in SMO and Others II confirms, the appellant will not be at risk of serious harm at the point of return by reason of not having a current passport. Paragraph [5.1.3] of the CPIN quotes Dr Rebwar Fateh and the steps taken when a failed asylum seeker is returned to Iraq without an ID document, and they are detained at the airport. The appellant has at least a copy of his CSID and in any event, I find, a number of family members who can attend at the airport to confirm his identity. He will be able to secure, at least, a seven-day residency permit pending proof of identity. During that time, the appellant will be able to obtain his own ID.
33. On arrival in Baghdad, it remains the case that an individual is expected to attend their local CSA office in order to obtain a replacement document. At Annex E and Annex F of the CPIN, there is evidence that there are no longer any CSID offices in Iraq, and that only INID offices now exist. The appellant is a Shia Muslim and will have to personally attend the Civil Status Affairs (“CSA”) to enrol his biometrics, including fingerprints and iris scans.
34. As the appellant is from Baghdad, and, I find, is not at risk upon return to Baghdad, the question of internal relocation to elsewhere in Iraq does not arise. The appellant would not have to pass through checkpoints to travel, for example, from Baghdad to Mosul, where his extended maternal family live. In any event, as is clear from the guidance set out in SMO and Others II, there are no on-entry sponsorship requirements for Baghdad but there are sponsorship requirements for residency. A documented individual of working age is likely to be able to satisfy those requirements. Furthermore, relocation to Baghdad is likely to be reasonable for Arab Shia and Sunni single, able-bodied men and married couples of working age without children and without specific vulnerabilities. The appellant would not be ‘relocating’ to Baghdad, but despite the passage of time he has been absent, returning to his home area. I find the appellant’s family continue to have familial links to Baghdad, and there is no reason why as an Arab Shia, he could not return to Baghdad.
35. I have found the appellant is in possession of his CSID or that it is available to him. In any event, he has family who remain in Iraq (both in Baghdad and Mosul) and with whom the appellant remains in contact. The question of obtaining a replacement does not therefore arise. If the appellant does not have the CSID in his possession, there is no reason why the appellant cannot take immediate steps, with the assistance of his family to have his CSID sent to him here in the UK or why the appellant could not be met by his family or relatives, in Baghdad, with the CSID, within a reasonable time of the appellant’s arrival. On the findings made and preserved, I reject the claim that the appellant will be at risk on return to Baghdad and I find there will not be a breach of Article 3.
36. It follows that I dismiss the appeal on asylum, humanitarian protection and Article 3 grounds.
Notice of Decision
37. The appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s decision of 27 July 2020 is dismissed on asylum, humanitarian protection and Articles 3 and 8 grounds.

V. Mandalia
Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

27 May 2025