Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2024-004872
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/53689/2023
IA/00982/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 5 May 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LODATO
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DOYLE

Between

SS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Winter, counsel, instructed by Jones Whyte Law
For the Respondent: Ms R Arif, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Melville Street, Edinburgh, on 21 April 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

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.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. We maintain the existing anonymity direction because this appeal arises from the appellant’s protection claim.

2. This is the re-making decision in the appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s refusal of his protection and human rights claims. It follows from the Upper Tribunal’s error of law decision (Upper Tribunal Judge Gill), sent out on 15 May 2025, by which the decision of the First-tier Tribunal was set aside with preserved findings and the appeal retained in the Upper Tribunal.

Background

3. The appellant was born on 16 December 2000 and is a citizen of Iraq. The appellant and his family moved to the United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’) in 2006 when the appellant was aged 5½ years, because of his father’s fears for the family’s safety. The appellant came to the United Kingdom on 15 September 2018 and claimed asylum on 21 June 2022.

4. The appellant entered the United Kingdom using a valid passport and student visa. He has completed an integrated master’s degree from Glasgow University in aeronautical engineering and claimed asylum in 2022 after he finished his degree.

5. The appellant says that he fears persecution in Iraq because of his membership of a particular social group, as a member of an Iraqi Ba’athist family. His father was a captain in Saddam Hussein’s security forces and was a member of the Ba’ath party. The appellant is a Sunni Muslim and says he fears Shia militias in Iraq.

The error of law decision

6. The appellant claimed asylum on 09/07/2022. On 12/06/2023 the respondent refused the appellant’s protection claim. The appellant appealed, and in a decision dated 19/09/2024 the First-tier Tribunal allowed his appeal on asylum and ECHR grounds. The respondent was granted permission to appeal

7. In a decision issued on 15/05/2025 the Upper Tribunal set the First-tier Tribunal’s decision aside, but preserved a number of findings in fact.

The Preserved Findings

8. The preserved findings are

(i) The appellant is an Iraqi national from Baghdad. His father was a Ba’athist who served as a captain in Saddam Hussein’s security forces. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, the appellant’s family received death threats which his father took seriously.

(ii) Because of the death threats, the appellant’s family relocated to UAE before the appellant was 6 years old. Neither the Appellant nor his parents have returned to Iraq since.

(iii) The appellant and his parents are Sunni Muslims

(iv) The appellant’s parents did not tell him about the death threats until 2022, by which time he was in the UK as a student.

(v) The appellant’s right to reside in the UAE has expired. The appellant renewed his Iraqi passport in the UK in 2020. The appellant’s parents have his birth certificate and Iraqi national ID card in UAE.

(vi) The appellant’s maternal aunt and cousin live in Kirkuk. He is not in contact with them because his father has fallen out with them.

(vii) The appellant did not delay in claiming asylum, so s.8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 does not operate against him.

(viii) The appellant has not lived in Iraq since he was 5½ years old. Then, he was protected from the surrounding violence, upheaval, and threats, by his family. If the appellant returns to Iraq today, he will be alone. He has neither family nor a network of support available in Iraq. The appellant will return to a country he is unfamiliar with.

The principal controversial issues and the agreed facts

9. Both representatives agreed that this case is entirely about risk on return. The Senior Home Office Presenting Officer accepted that if the appellant establishes risk on return, then there will not be a sufficiency of protection for him, and internal relocation is not a viable option.

10. The Appellant wants to raise a new article 8 (Family life) ECHR argument, but the Respondent does not consent to that new matter, so it is not before us.

11. The preserved findings are not challenged.
Evidence and Submissions
12. An interpreter had been booked to assist the appellant give evidence, but no interpreter was available. The appellant speaks good English. He was educated to degree level in Glasgow. Counsel for the appellant told us that the appellant is keen to proceed without an interpreter. We were told that an up-to-date witness statement had been taken from the appellant in English that morning.
13. The up-to-date witness statement was tendered along with a supplementary bundle. The senior Home Office presenting officer did not object to the late evidence, so both the witness statement and the supplementary bundle (together with a list of authorities) was accepted into evidence.
14. The senior Home Office presenting officer told us that, having considered all of the evidence, she had no questions for the appellant. The appellant adopted the terms of each of his three witness statements. The senior Home Office presenting officer declined the opportunity to cross-examine the appellant. We then heard both representatives’ submissions.
Legal Framework
15. To succeed in an appeal on asylum grounds, an appellant must show a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, political opinion). The burden of proof is upon the Appellant. As per the decision in Karanakaran v SSHD [2000] 3 All ER 449 the single standard of proof is a reasonable degree of likelihood. I must determine whether it is reasonably likely that:
(a) Taking the claim at its highest, there is a Convention reason;
(b) Considering the credibility of the account, the Appellant fears persecution for that Convention reason;
(c) The Appellant would be persecuted for that Convention reason;
(d) There would not be sufficient protection available; and
(e) The Appellant could not internally relocate.
16. To succeed on an appeal on humanitarian protection grounds the Appellant must not be a refugee; they must show substantial grounds for believing that they would face a real risk of suffering serious harm in their country of origin. The burden of proof rests on the Appellant.
Findings

17. (a) The appellant claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution because of his membership of a particular social group. His father is a known Ba’athist who served in Saddam Hussein's military.

(b) It has already been judicially determined that the appellant left Iraq as a 5½ year old boy, he left with his parents who travelled to the UAE for their safety because the family had been threatened by the Badr group. The appellant has not been back to Iraq since. The family home in Baghdad has been sold, but threats from Shia militia have been delivered to that address. The most recent threat included a threat to the appellant which was delivered in 2020.

(c) Background materials tell us that the Badr group is now part of PMF. PMF is an Iranian backed Shia paramilitary group, which now form part of the Iraqi armed forces but makes no secret about answering to Iran. PMF operates throughout Iraq, and one of their target areas is Baghdad.

(d) The appellant is a Sunni Muslim who comes from Baghdad. He is single and has no dependants. None of his family remain in Baghdad. He is not in touch with his maternal relatives in Kirkuk.

(e) Almost all of the appellant's account has already been accepted. The respondent declined the opportunity to challenge any of the appellant’s evidence by cross examination. When we consider each strand of evidence, we find that the appellant gives a consistent account. He gives a balanced account, admitting that he has access to a passport and an Iraqi national identity card. Almost all of the core aspects of his account have already been accepted.

(f) We find that the appellant is a credible and reliable witness who gives an unchallenged account. We therefore find that the appellant’s uncle was kidnapped, before his family fled Iraq in 2006, because his uncle is linked to the appellant's father. We accept that there have been threats to the appellant's life as recently as 2020. We accept that the appellant has not had a CSID for the last 20 years and does not have an INID.

(g) Combining our findings with the preserved findings, we conclude that the appellant is a single man with no dependents. He is known as the son of a Ba’athist. Both the appellant and his father had been threatened by PMF. If the appellant is returned, he will be returned to Baghdad. The appellant has not been in Baghdad for 20 years. When he left Baghdad, he was a little boy who was entirely dependent on his Ba’athist parents. He will rapidly be noticed. He has no family and no network of support in Baghdad. The appellant has neither a CSID nor an INID.

(h) With that profile, there is a real risk that the threat to the appellant’s life will be acted on by Shia militia. We therefore find that the appellant is a refugee.

Humanitarian protection
18. The appellant is a refugee. We cannot consider whether he qualifies for humanitarian protection.
Human rights
19. We have found the appellant has established a well-founded fear of persecution, by analogy we find his claim engages articles 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Convention.
20. We accept the appellant’s evidence that he has neither a CSID nor an INID. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant has been outside Iraq since 2006. Relying on AH, AK & AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI) Iraq CG [2026] UKUT 00150 (IAC), the senior Home Office presenting officer accepted that without a CSID the appellant cannot apply for an INID either in the UK or in Iraq.

21. Mindful of the guidance now given, we find that return to Iraq will breach the appellant’s Article 3 rights because there is no prospect of re-documentation within a reasonable time. The appellant has neither family nor a network of supportive friends in Baghdad. He would return as a stranger. He would not have access to housing, employment, or social support.

Article 8

22. We have found that the appellant is a refugee. We have found that the appellant would return to Baghdad as a stranger, with no family, no network of support, and no prospect of re-documentation within a reasonable time. By analogy, we find that there are very significant obstacles to his reintegration in Iraq. The appellant meets the requirements of appendix PL to the Immigration rules.

23. Section 117B of the 2002 Act tells us that immigration control is in the public interest.

24. We have found that the appellant meets the requirements of appendix PL to the rules. TZ (Pakistan) and PG (India) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1109 tells us that where a person satisfies the Rules, whether or not by reference to an article 8 informed requirement, then this will be positively determinative of that person's article 8 appeal, provided their case engages article 8(1).

25. As the appellant meets the requirements of appendix PL to the rules, the respondent’s decision must be a breach of his right to respect for private life.
Decision
1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 19/09/2024 was set aside by a decision of the Upper Tribunal issued on 15/05/2025

2. The decision in the appeal is remade.

3. The appeal is allowed on Asylum grounds.

4. The appeal is dismissed on humanitarian protection grounds.

5. The appeal is allowed on article 8 Human Rights grounds.

Signed Paul Doyle Date 29 April 2026
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Doyle