Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-001297

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/50111/2023
LP/02043/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 13 March 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEITH

Between

‘HA’ (Iraq)
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION CONTINUED)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: The Appellant attended as a litigant in person
For the Respondent: Mr P Lawson, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 5th March 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

The anonymity directions are continued. Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant and any member of her family are granted anonymity. This is because the subject matter of this appeal includes a protection claim. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name and address of the appellant or her family, likely to lead members of the public to identify them. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. These written reasons reflect the full oral reasons which I gave to the parties at the end of the hearing. As I had previously indicated in my error of law decision sent to the parties on 15th January 2025, (and which is annexed to these reasons) I had previously set aside the decision of an earlier Tribunal Judge on the basis that it was arguable that the Judge had erred as to the appellant’s ability to obtain identity documentation, so as to enable her to return safely to Iraq. It was not clear what findings the Judge had made and whether it was possible for the appellant to obtain identity documents by proxy as appeared to have been found. The respondent conceded that there was an error of law and on that basis the decision was set aside. I had indicated in my error of law decision that the re-making was limited to the appellant’s ability to redocument herself and not based on any ongoing pursued asylum claim. The ability to redocument was relevant to a claim of humanitarian protection and/or Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Respondent’s concession at the beginning of the hearing
2. At the beginning of the hearing, Mr Lawson confirmed, in response to my questions, that he was not instructed to withdraw the underlying refusal of the humanitarian protection and human rights. However, he was instructed to make the following concession, that the appellant did not have access to her Iraqi identity documents and that it was not possible for her to obtain such documents from the Iraqi authorities in the UK. On that basis, he conceded that the appellant’s removal would breach her right to humanitarian protection and breach her rights under Article 3 of the ECHR, and the respondent’s refusal of these claims contained fundamental errors. For the avoidance of doubt, he did not concede that her removal would breach the respondent’s obligations under the Refugee Convention as to the appellant’s status as a refugee. That was because her allegations of adverse interest in Iraq had been disputed and there was no further appeal on that issue.
3. I was very conscious that the appellant is a litigant in person. She was without legal representation although had the benefit of an interpreter in Kurdish Sorani. I indicated to her two things. First, it was not possible for me to direct the type of leave that the respondent should grant. Second, there was a distinction between refugee status and humanitarian protection. However, I emphasised that I was not able to give her legal advice. I asked her whether she was content that I allow her appeal based on Mr Lawson’s concessions, namely that her removal would breach her right to humanitarian protection and/or Article 3 ECHR but not on the basis that she was a refugee. She confirmed that she was content that I issue a judgment in those terms. There had been no outstanding appeal against the Judge’s rejection of the asylum claim.
4. As a consequence, and on the basis of Mr Lawson’s formal concessions on behalf of the respondent, I allow the appellant’s appeal on the basis that the respondent’s decision to refuse humanitarian protection and the human rights claims contained fundamental errors, and that the appellant’s removal would breach her rights for humanitarian protection and also on the basis of Article 3. I should add that the same analysis applies in relation to Article 8 ECHR and therefore the appellant’s appeal also succeeds on that basis.

Notice of Decision
5. The appellant’s appeal on the basis that she is a refugee has previously been refused and there was no outstanding appeal on that basis. However, the appellant’s appeal based on humanitarian protection, and Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR succeeds and the respondent’s decision is not upheld.
6. The anonymity directions will continue to apply.

J Keith

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

6th March 2025

ANNEX - ERROR OF LAW DECISION

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-001297

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/50111/2023
LP/02043/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

…………………………………

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEITH

Between

‘HA’ (Iraq)

(Anonymity direction made)
Appellant
and

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: The appellant represented herself
For the Respondent: Ms S Simbi, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 13 December 2024

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant and any member of her family is granted anonymity. This is because the subject matter of this appeal is a protection claim. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant or her family, likely to lead members of the public to identify them. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The written reasons reflect the full oral decision which I gave to the parties at the end of the hearing.
2. The appellant appeals, without legal representation, having indicated that she no longer can afford legal representation and therefore must act alone. I have therefore attempted to ensure that with the assistance of an interpreter, matters have been explained to her in clear and simple terms, so that she can participate effectively in the hearing, and I am grateful to Ms Simbi for explaining the Secretary of State’s position. The appellant had appealed against the judgment of a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, Judge Juss, who, in a decision following a hearing on 3rd November 2023, had dismissed the appellant’s claim to be at risk in her country of origin, Iraq, on so-called ‘honour based’ grounds.
3. The Judge had rejected the appellant’s account as not credible and had also considered whether, by virtue of lack of access to an identity document, the appellant would nevertheless be at risk either under Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive i.e. humanitarian protection, or under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Judge rejected the appeal. The grounds of appeal are succinct, without criticism of the appellant, who is a litigant in person. The appellant says that the Judge’s reasons were in parts opaque and confusing. They add that in relation to an INID document, it was for the Respondent, as being in the best position, to explain which Iraqi registries could still produce CSIDs.
4. I pause to observe that in the respondent’s review, it was not its case that the appellant in fact had her CSID card, rather that with the assistance of relatives in Iraq, that she could obtain a replacement INID or CSID card.
The Grant of Permission
5. Judge Dainty of the First-tier Tribunal granted only limited permission. The permitted ground was that it was arguable that the Judge had erred at §26 as to identity documentation because it was not clear as to what findings were being made and it was not possible to obtain an INID by proxy, as appeared to be the basis of the finding.
The Respondent’s Concession
6. The respondent in her Rule 24 response of 27th March 2024 conceded that the Judge had materially erred in law. At §26, whilst the Judge had believed that an INID card could be obtained by proxy, that was contrary to the well-known authority of SMO & KSP (Civil status documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 00110 (IAC). Headnote (12) of that case made clear that there was a phased replacement of the CSID system and that INIDs had to be obtained in person.
7. Ms Simbi maintained that the Judge’s findings on refugee status based on the claimed so-called ‘honour based’ crimes stand and there is no error in them. However, she accepted that there is an error specifically on the appellant’s ability to redocument by obtaining an INID card and that in turn would be relevant to humanitarian protection by virtue of Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive and Articles 3 and 8 ECHR. She was neutral as to remaking but urged me to consider that remaking is not today because of the fluid situation, specifically that the Iraqi Embassy in London has recently announced a potential ability to obtain an INID card from London, albeit provided that the appellant cooperates and provides details of the local CSA Office. Finally, I also canvassed because the appellant herself raised it, the situation of her husband’s ill-health and her children. I indicated that whilst there was a brief reference to it in the respondent’s review, and whilst it might be said that the Judge had not considered those specific matters, that had not been a ground of appeal raised by her and had not been a permitted ground and therefore she will need to make further submissions, if she so wishes, to the respondent, but that is not within the scope of remaking. The sole issue of remaking is her ability to redocument.
Notice of Decision
8. The Judge’s decision on the appellant’s refugee status based on a risk of persecution because of so-called ‘honour based’ crimes stands.
9. However, the Judge specifically erred at §26 in his analysis as to the risks and the ability to redocument on the basis of an INID card, which is inconsistent with SMO.
Disposal
10. There will need to be remade at a remaking hearing. I have borne in mind the Senior President’s Practice Statement (paragraphs 7.2(a) and (b). The effect of the error was not such as to deprive the appellant of a fair hearing. Similarly, the scope and nature of any fact-finding is very narrow. Ordinarily, absent recent developments which Ms Simbi has outlined, it would have appeared that the Secretary of State was in some difficulty. However, matters are said to be fluid and if it is correct that the Iraqi embassy is about to announce imminently the ability to obtain INID cards from the UK, it is appropriate that this discrete matter be considered in the Upper Tribunal at a resumed hearing on a later date, once the Secretary of State is able to clarify the position, which should be soon.
Directions
11. I therefore retain remaking in the Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on the first available date. The case will be listed in Birmingham with a Kurdish Sorani interpreter to last three hours. I appreciate that the appellant is a litigant in person and so will not be able to prepare any electronic or physical bundle.
12. In preparation for the resumed hearing, with my thanks, Ms Simbi kindly agreed on behalf of the Secretary of State to prepare a bundle. I am conscious that the appellant is a litigant in person. She has a limited ability to read and write but she indicated that her children can use emails and are able to take photographs of any documents she wishes to rely on and to send those photographs via email to Ms Simbi. Ms Simbi has provided the email address to which those photographs should be sent, namely utdirections@homeoffice.gov.uk with the case reference. The appellant is expected to do this in good time before the respondent compiles the bundle and not leave it until the last minute. The appellant is therefore asked to do so no later than mid January.

J Keith

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

2nd January 2025