Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-000403

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/51190/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 12th of March 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE L MURRAY

Between

YA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Da Silva, Fountain Solicitors
For the Respondent: Miss Rushforth, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre on 14 February 2025

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. The Appellant is a national of Iraq. He appealed against the Respondent’s decision dated 10 February 2023 refusing his protection claim. His appeal was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Short in a decision promulgated on 25 September 2023.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Rimington on 16 February 2024 on the grounds that it was arguable that the FTT failed to apply SMO & KSP (Civil status documentation; Article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 110 or to identify which CPIN she relied on and merely relied on a undertaking. The ground of permission states that it appears at paragraph 38 that the judge found the appellant to be undocumented and arguably did not adequately reason how the appellant would be able to redocument himself or travel.
3. The matter came before me to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had erred in law, and if so whether any such error was material such that the decision should be set aside.
Error of Law – Grounds of Appeal
4. The grounds seeking permission to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal assert that the Appellant would, in accordance with SMO and KSP (Civil status documentation, article 15) (CG [2022] UKUT 00110 (“SMO 2”) , be returned to Baghdad and would have to arrange onward travel by land or air to the IKR and would require his CSID or INID for travel from Baghdad onwards. It is submitted that contrary to the Respondent’s representations at the hearing and the FTTJ’s findings, there was no policy in existence that the Appellant would be returned to Sulaymaniyah. It is submitted that this was contrary to both the decision in SMO 2 and the Respondent’s CPIN Iraq: Internal relocation, civil documentation and returns June 2020. It is submitted that it would be impossible for the Appellant to travel to his local CSA office in Iraq without his CSID.
5. The grounds of appeal to the Upper tribunal on renewal impugn the refusal of permission of FTTJ Chowdhury and assert that the refusal to grant permission contains a material error of law.
The hearing
6. Miss Rushforth confirmed that the appeal was opposed.
7. Mr Da Silva submitted that a person in the position of the Appellant would be at risk of serious harm to the IKR on return if not in possession of a CSID.
8. Miss Rushforth argued that FTTJ made permissible findings in accordance with
“SMO2” and the CPIN internal relocation, civil documentation and returns, Iraq, July 2022. The FTTJ imported the findings of First-tier Tribunal Judge Fowell from November 2019 on the basis of the principles in Devaseelan (Second Appeals, ECHR, Extra-Territorial Effect) principles [2002] UKIAT 702 and returns could be facilitated to any airport in Northern Iraq. The grounds were a disagreement with the FTTJ’s adequately reasoned findings of fact.
9. Mr Da Silva said in response that even if the Judge found that the Appellant had contact with his family, further reasons should have been provided as to how the Appellant would obtain documentation through his family.
Conclusions – Error of Law
10. The FTTJ found that the Appellant had not demonstrated that he was at risk of persecution or harm in Iraq from either state or non-state actors (paragraph 37). The FTTJ then found at paragraphs 38 to 41 that, on the assumption that the Appellant would be returned to Sulaymaniyah International Airport in his home area, he would either be able to rely on his family to provide him with CSID documentation (which the Judge in 2019 stated that they had) or travel to the relevant location to obtain INID himself with no real risk of harm. The FTTJ concluded that his family would be prepared to support him if he returned to his home area. The FTTJ found that the Appellant’s case before her rested on the decision in SMO2, the recent CPIN and the risks faced by an undocumented Iraqi Kurd who was returned to Baghdad but since the Respondent made a clear statement that the Appellant would be returned to Sulaymaniyah the risks were greatly diminished.
11. The Appellant’s bundle before the FTT contained the CPIN: internal relocation, civil documentation and returns, Iraq, July 2022 which stated at paragraphs 2.6.3 and 3.1.1 that failed asylum seekers could be returned to any airport in Federal Iraq and the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. At paragraph 26 of the headnote to SMO2 the Upper Tribunal states that there are regular direct flights from the UK to the Iraqi Kurdish Region and returns might be to Baghdad or to that region. It is for the respondent to state whether she intends to remove to Baghdad, Erbil or Sulaymaniyah. Although, the FTTJ expressed this fact as a ‘policy’ it is clear that the information in relation to returns to Sulaymaniyah was contained both in the CPIN and SMO 2 and there was therefore no error in finding that the Appellant would be returned to Sulaymaniyah Airport.
12. In accordance with SMO2, the FTTJ was required to assess whether the Appellant would be returned to Iraq in possession of a CSID or INID or whether he could obtain replacement documents within a reasonable time frame. Family members can provide returnees with their original documentation or a replacement document (ie their family members have obtained a replacement CSID from a CSA office in Iraq). Paragraph 2.9.1 to 2.9.3 of the same CPIN deals with the conditions on return for undocumented persons and sets out that a person who is unable to replace their CSID and/or obtain an INID is likely to face significant difficulties in accessing services and thus risks being exposed to humanitarian conditions that are likely to result in destitution sufficient to amount to a breach of Article 3. Documented persons returning to their home area would not in general face such conditions.
13. The FTTJ accepted that the Appellant would be undocumented on return. However, it was open to her to accept, on Devaseelan principles, that the Appellant’s CSID was with his family in Sulaymaniyah as this had been found as a fact by Judge Fowell at paragraph 50 of the decision in November 2019. It was therefore also open to her to find that the Appellant would be able to rely on his family to provide him with CSID documentation on return. The Judge found at paragraph 39 that as she had not accepted the Appellant’s account of the threat to him, his family would be prepared to support him. In the circumstances, no further reasoning was required. It follows that there was no error of law in the decision of the FTT.

Notice of Decision

The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of a material error of law.

I do not set the decision aside and the Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.

L Murray

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

27 February 2024