Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005064

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/51851/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

08th April 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON

Between

MKA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Imamovic, instructed by Kings Law Solicitors.
For the Respondent: Ms Simbi, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 28 March 2025

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. The Appellant is a citizen of Iraqi born on 14 October 1991 who entered the UK illegally on an unknown date and claimed asylum on 11 November 2021.
2. The Secretary of State refused his application for international protection on 25 October 2023 and his appeal against that refusal was dismissed by a judge of the First-tier Tribunal on 17 September 2024, against which he appealed.
3. Permission to appeal was granted by a judge of the Upper Tribunal on 19 November 2024. In a determination promulgated on 17 February 2025 a Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge found the First-tier Tribunal had not erred in law in relation to the rejection of the Appellant’s asylum claim, on the basis that the findings given which form the basis of the rejection of that claim were open to the First-tier Tribunal Judge. The Deputy Judge did, however, find the First-tier Judge had erred in law in relation to the issue of documentation. At [14] the Deputy Judge wrote:

14. Given the only outstanding issue is a documentation issue (CSID/INID) which may possibly engage article 3 ECHR I am satisfied that although limited evidence may be required this is a matter that could remain in the Upper Tribunal and could be disposed of with brief evidence and submissions.

4. That forms the basis of the scope of the hearing before me today, the purpose of which is to allow the Upper Tribunal to substitute a decision to either allow or dismiss the appeal.
5. The First-tier Judge’s findings in support of the preserved decision reveal a finding of a lack of credibility in the Appellant’s core claim. The findings are:

11. The FTTJ made the following findings:

a. His account of himself and his father being assaulted in the office by Sangawi’s bodyguards and why they did not report the assaults was not credible for the reasons provided in paragraph [18].
b. The fact the family were able to move to Kirkuk and experienced no problems from Sangawi or the PUK was indicative of the fact that the Appellant was of no interest to them.
c. A man of Sangawi’s influence would have been able to find them especially as the “arrest warrant” was in his real name.
d. No evidence put before the FTTJ that the father experienced any further issues with either the PUK or Sangawi and there appeared to be no attempts by them to find him.
e. Little weight was attached to the supporting letter from the father given it was provided so late in these proceedings when it was reasonable to expect such evidence to have been adduced around the time he made his claim for asylum in November 2021.
f. If the Appellant had been arrested and brutally assaulted by PUF members and his manager had been shot for resisting it was not credible the Appellant would have been left unrestrained and therefore been able to escape.
g. No medical evidence to support any long term injuries was adduced despite claiming he visited his GP more than once.
h. Evidence of arrest warrant rejected as it was not credible he only found out about it until March 2024 even though his father claimed he was given the arrest warrant in March 2021. The arrest warrant was translated but according to the Appellant the translation contained errors. Little weight was attached to the document in the circumstances despite the explanation advanced at the hearing.

6. It is of interest to note the First-tier Tribunal Judge was presented with a supporting letter purportedly from the Appellant’s father late, to which little weight was attached on the basis it was reasonable to expect such evidence to have been adduced around the time the Appellant made his asylum claim in November 2021.
7. On the morning of the hearing to which this decision relates the Appellant produced a document which he claimed was a translation of a letter from his father dated 28 February 2025 in the following terms:

Greetings to my son M I hope you would always be well and wish you success over difficulties you may face. You have asked me to provide your documents which were here. I regret to inform you that they due to the incident we had with Hashid Alshaabi (Popular Mobilisation Forces) they were all lost and no longer with us.

Signed
Your father
K A
28/02/2025

8. Ms Simbi did not oppose the fresh evidence being adduced and confirmed that she was not prejudiced by its late service.
9. The Appellant’s written evidence stood as his evidence-in-chief following which he was cross- examined by Ms Simbi with the assistance of the Kurdish (Sorani) interpreter, re-examined by Ms Imamovic, following which the advocates made their submissions.
10. The Appellant was asked by Ms Simbi which documents were taken when he claimed the PMF raided his home, to which he stated that it was only his documents and that all his documents were in the family home at the time. He referred to his passport, his CSID and ID documents.
11. When the Appellant was asked why they would visit the family home an only his documents were taken, he claimed it was because there were only interested in him and had nothing against his family.
12. It was specifically put to the Appellant by Ms Simbi that as his story had not been accepted in relation to events in Iraq by the First-tier Tribunal why should his claim that his documents had been taken be believed, to which he just repeated his claim that a PMF vehicle came and they took his documents.
13. When Ms Simbi asked the Appellant whether he was aware that his story had not been accepted he stated that he was there and appeared not to accept that outcome. He also did not accept the Home Office position that he could get his documents from his father, as he claimed they had been taken and he did not have the same.
14. The basis of the claim for international protection, summarised in the Reasons for Refusal letter dated the 25 October 2023 reads:

Basis of claim You told us that:
• You are a national of Iraq.
• In January 2021 you were working with your father at Directorate of Planning and Public Census in Kalar, when your father asked you to photocopy approximately three hundred planning and government contract dossiers and to pass them to Hama Salih MP and Soran Omar MP (WS 4).
• Mahmood Sangawi’s bodyguards tried to remove the planning records from your father’s office, however he refused. As a result, you and your father got involved in a physical fight with the bodyguards. Thereafter you went to the authorities and filed a complaint against Mr Sangawi. The following week, your father was removed from his post, and you also lost your role with. You were both threatened by Mr Sangawi and he accused you of providing information to the MPs. You did not hear back from the authorities relating to the matter (WS 5 - 7).
• A week later, the corrupted activities of the companies that belonged to Mr Sangawi was released. Your father received a threatening phone call from Mr Sangawi, accusing both of you of providing information to the MPs. The same day you and your family moved to Kirkuk (WS 8).
• Your neighbours in Bawa Nor informed your father that armed vehicles raided your home at night and that the people were asking for your whereabouts (WS 9). The next day your father, uncle and three elders from your area went to Mr Sangawi to explain the situation. However, Mr Sangawi denied the visit (WS 10). • In Kirkuk, you and your family kept a low profile (WS 12). In October 2021, you were requested to change three vehicles’ brake pads and disks which belonged to the PMU. After the request was completed, the PMU took their cars and left but they came back. They physically hurt you and your manager as allegedly after they took the vehicles, one had an accident and they lost two members. Your manager was shot, they took you both in the back of a pickup, and you jumped off and ran away (WS 13).
• Thereafter, you ran to your friend’s house nearby. The following day your father told you that your home was raided again and told you to surrender. He advised you to leave the country (WS 14, 15)
• Thereafter, on 13th October you left Kirkuk with the assistance of an agent (WS 16). • If returned to Iraq, you fear you will be killed by the PMF and Mahmoud Sangawi as you have been accused to be giving information to the parliament and accused of killing two men due a bad car repair (AIR 49, 54).

15. The basis of the Appellant’s claim to be at risk of adverse attention from the PMF was therefore due to his allegation that he and his father provided information to parliamentary members and that he himself had been accused of killing two members due to a wrongful car repair, but those claims, and all the reasons why the Appellant claimed to be entitled to a grant of international protection, have been found to be lies.
16. Although the Appellant has provided what he alleges is a letter from his father claiming the PMF seized his documents and that there are no documents at home, the Appellant’s evidence is that he was of adverse interest to the PMF has been found to lack credibility for the reasons set out above. As that evidence has been shown to lack credibility his claim to face a real risk from the PMF is also not credible, and he therefore fails to establish any credible basis to support his claim that they would have come to the family home looking for him, or any credible reason for why they would wish to seize his documents.
17. The Appellant also claimed that it was only his documents that were taken despite his family being Kurdish and claiming that he and his father had provided information that upset powerful people in Iraqi, yet none of his father’s documents were taken.
18. Ms Simbi also referred to the Appellant’s witness statement of June 2024, at [23], where the Appellant wrote:

23. The Home Office claims that my return to Iraq is considered feasible although I am not currently in possession of my Iraqi National Identity (INID) card or Civil Status ID (CSID) because I have family, relatives and friends in Iraq whom I have had recent contact with. I maintain that I never claimed that I would not be able to return because I do not have INID or CSID card. I maintain that I left my home country fearing persecution with power and authority such as Mahmmod Sangawi as well as the PMF who have power and authority all over Iraq. I maintain that I am in contact with my family in Kirkuk my asylum claim is based on the events are specified above. I would face persecution due to the problems I had before I left my home country rather than face risk on return because I do not have my ID’s.

19. On behalf of the Appellant Ms Imamovic submitted that although there are adverse credibility issues there can be a separate element not affected by the same. I accept that as a general proposition this is correct as the fact one aspect of the claim lacks credibility does not mean that all aspects of the claim are necessarily impacted in a similar manner.
20. The difficulty for the Appellant is that the adverse credibility findings go to the heart of what he claims was the reason why the PMF came to his family home and took his documents. It is not therefore possible, when examining the facts, to separate the claim that his account lacked credibility and never occurred, from the current claim made by the Appellant in relation to his documents being seized.
21. I find on the basis of the adverse credibility findings, which are preserved, that the Appellant’s claim that the PMF came to his family home and took his documents also lacks credibility, and that no weight may be put upon such a claim.
22. The fact of the matter is, however, that the Appellant needs identity documents to function in Iraq. The Secretary of State in her CPIN accepts that if a person does not have the necessary identity documents, he or she would face a real risk of adverse treatment sufficient to entitle them to a grant of humanitarian protection.
23. The burden of proof of establishing lack of relevant documents falls upon the Appellant. I find either he has his documents himself or they are at his family home. It was not made out the Appellant would not be able to secure a laissez passer from the Iraqi Embassy in the UK.
24. It was not made out that with that document he would not be able to fly directly to Baghdad in accordance with the country guidance case of SMO.
25. If the Appellant has his identity documents with him then he will be able to use those to travel from Baghdad to his home area where, if required, he could make an appointment to provided biometrics and obtain an up-to-date INID.
26. If he does not have his documents they must be at home. The Appellant accepts he is in contact with his family and indeed claims the letter produced on the day of the hearing had been sent to him by his father. It has not been made out that his father does not have access to his identity documents, as the reason he claims he does not has been found to lack credibility.
27. It is not made out his father could not either send the documents to the Appellant in the UK or arrange to meet him at the airport in Baghdad. It was not made out that documents could not either be handed over to the immigration officials at the airport or directly to the Appellant on arrival. The effect is the same, based upon country material, that the Appellant will be allowed to leave the airport in Baghdad and travel home with his father.
28. Having sat back and considered the evidence as a whole, including that before the First-tier Tribunal, I find the Appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proof upon him to the lower standard to establish that he does not have access to his identity documents. I do not find the Appellant has discharged the burden of proof upon him to show that his claim in the alternative is true.
29. I do not find the Appellant has discharged the burden of proof upon him to the required standard to show that if returned to Baghdad will not be able to access the required documents to enable him to travel to his home area.
30. I do not find the Appellant has discharged the burden of proof upon him to the required standard to show he is entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection or leave any other basis in relation to the documentation issue, as he has failed to establish that he will not have the required identity documents to enable him to live a normal life on return to Baghdad.
31. On that basis the appeal must be dismissed.
Notice of Decision
32. Appeal dismissed.

C J Hanson

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

2 April 2025