Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2024-005159
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/59340/2023
LH/02224/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 10th of September 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHERIDAN

Between

KM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Khan, Counsel instructed by Dynamic Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Nappey, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 2 September 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. By a decision sealed on 2 April 2025 the Upper Tribunal (Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Haria) set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and directed that the decision would be remade in the Upper Tribunal. I now remake the decision.
Introduction
2. The appellant is a Kurdish citizen of Iraq. He is from a city/town called Ranya, which is in the Iraqi Kurdish Region (the IKR).
3. The appellant has been in the UK since 1999. In 2017, following a burglary conviction, for which he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, a deportation order was made against him.
4. The appellant made a protection and human rights claim that was refused by the respondent on 17 July 2023. He appealed to the First-tier Tribunal where his appeal was heard by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Scott Baker. In a decision dated 20 August 2024, Judge Scott Baker dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal where Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Haria upheld most of Judge Scott Baker’s findings but found that the First-tier Tribunal had erred when determining whether the appellant would be able to obtain Iraqi identify documentation (either a CSID or INID) and thereby avoid the risk of encountering conditions or treatment contrary to article 3 ECHR as a consequence of not having such documentation.
5. At the hearing before me, it was common ground between Mr Khan and Mr Nappey that the sole issue for me to determine was whether the appellant could obtain an INID.
6. Mr Nappey argued that there are two alternative ways in which the appellant can obtain an INID: from the Iraqi Embassy in London; or from his local Civil Status Affairs office in Ranya, to which he could travel safely from the airport in Erbil with the assistance of one or more of his 9 siblings in Iraq. Mr Khan argued that the evidence did not support a finding that the appellant has the necessary documentation to obtain an INID from the Iraqi Embassy in London or that he could travel to Ranya without having to pass through checkpoints where he would need an INID to avoid a real risk of treatment violating article 3 ECHR.
7. For the reasons set out below, I was persuaded by Mr Nappey. The appellant’s appeal is therefore dismissed.
CSIDs and INIDs: Country Guidance case law and the respondent’s bulletin of July 2026
8. A Civil Status Identity Document (CSID) is an Iraqi national identity document that, for many years, has been necessary in Iraq to legally work, access services and to safely travel overland. CSIDs have been replaced by a biometric identification card known as an Iraqi Nationality Identity Document (INID) and it is no longer possible to obtain a new CSID.
9. INIDs have been rolled out throughout Iraq and it is common ground that without one an Iraqi citizen may face a real risk of encountering treatment and conditions that are contrary to article 3 ECHR. One way this can occur is at checkpoints, where militia or others may demand to see a person’s INID and mistreat those who do not possess it.
10. The difficulties an Iraqi citizen in the UK may face in obtaining an INID were considered in detail in the Country Guidance case SMO and KSP (Civil status documentation, article 15) (CG)) Iraq [2022] UKUT 110. Updated guidance was given in AH, AK & AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI) Iraq CG [2026] UKUT 00150 (IAC). However, AH has been set aside and, following a consent order approved by the Court of Appeal, has been remitted to the Upper Tribunal for remaking. Accordingly, I have not considered AH. I note that it was not argued by either party that I should adjourn the hearing pending the remaking of AH.
11. In SMO it is stated that to obtain an INID an individual would need to attend their local Civil Status Affairs office in Iraq. It is also stated that an Iraqi from the IKR could be removed to either Erbil or Sulaymaniyah (both of which are in the IKR).
12. In the respondent’s July 2026 Country Bulletin on Iraq (“the Bulletin”), the respondent provides updated information regarding CSID and INID documents. Significantly, this sets out information about a new way (not in place when SMO was decided) for Iraqis in the UK to obtain an INID. The Bulletin states:
In October 2024, the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs website published the following announcement:
‘The Embassy of the Republic of Iraq in the United Kingdom in London is pleased to announce to the Iraqi community residing in the UK that appointments are now available for applying for the National Card (in a trial phase), starting from Monday, October 21, 2024.
‘Required Documents:
• Completion of the National Card application form.
• Iraqi nationality certificate in the applicant’s name, or presentation of an Iraqi nationality certificate or National Card supporting document (father, mother, brother, sister, paternal grandfather, uncle). [Note: based on another page on the Embassy website, ‘supporting document’ appears to mean a copy of a nationality certificate or INID belonging to a paternal relative.]
• Civil status identity card.
• Iraqi passport.
• Proof of identity (if no document is provided in the applicant’s name). [Note: it is unclear whether this means a person can submit alternative proof of identity as a substitute for all the documents listed above]
• Proof of address.
• Additionally, please fill out the online form for the National Card by visiting the official website of the National Card Affairs Directorate at the following link: https://www.nid-moi.gov.iq/
•Or access the link here: https://www.nid-moi.gov.iq/?page=5
‘To schedule an appointment for the issuance of the National Card or for inquiries, please contact the number below during working days from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM: +447597175733.’5
It is unclear whether a person must submit all of the listed documents in order to successfully obtain an INID at the Embassy. CPIT was unable to find any other information about the required documents in the sources consulted”
Findings of fact
13. It was common ground that the appellant has (or has access to, via the respondent who holds the documents) an expired Iraqi passport, an expired CSID, and a birth certificate. I find as a fact that the appellant has (or can obtain from the respondent) these documents.
14. The appellant gave evidence of visiting the Iraqi embassy in London two years ago and of having being told that he could not obtain an INID in the UK. That may be the case, but it does not mean he would receive a similar response today, given the changes that have since occurred, as described in the Bulletin. I find as fact that the appellant has no personal experience or knowledge of applying for an INID at the embassy in the UK after the new system began on 21 October 2024 (as set out in the Bulletin).
15. The appellant was asked by Mr Nappey about his 9 siblings in Iraq. He did not dispute that he has siblings but maintained that he has lost contact with all them. He stated that he does not have contact details for them and pointed out that he left Iraq before mobile phones and devices were commonplace. It seems extraordinary that the appellant, who was in his mid-20s when he left Ranya, has not maintained contact with any of his family and has no way of contacting them (either directly or via friends in Ranya). This is particularly the case given the cultural norm of family support, as referred to in para. 32 of the headnote to SMO. The appellant’s evidence on this lacks plausibility and I am not persuaded that he has lost contact with all of his family or that he would not have his family’s support on return to the IKR. Applying the lower standard of reasonable degree of likelihood, I find that the appellant will have family support in the IKR and that one or more of his brothers will meet him at the airport, on his arrival in the IKR, and take him to Ranya.
Obtaining an INID from the Iraqi embassy in the UK
16. Mr Khan argued that I should not depart from SMO (where it was found that an INID cannot be obtained in UK). In the alternative, he argued that if I do depart from SMO, and instead follow what is said in the Bulletin, I should find that the appellant will not be able to obtain an INID in the UK as (a) he does not have all of the documents listed in the announcement by the Iraq Ministry of foreign affairs; and (b) his passport and CSID are expired.
17. Mr Nappey argued that there are strong grounds supported by cogent evidence to depart from SMO, because the Bulletin outlines a new process for obtaining an INID in the UK that post-dates SMO. He submitted that the appellant holds documents that, in combination, are sufficient for him to be able to obtain an INID at the Iraqi embassy in London.
18. The extant Country Guidance case on Iraq addressing identity documents is SMO. I am required to follow SMO unless there are very strong grounds supported by cogent evidence for not doing so: see paragraph 47 of SG (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 940. In my view, there is in this case a very strong ground supported by cogent evidence to depart from SMO on the question of whether an INID can be obtained from the Iraqi embassy in the UK, which is that the Iraqi Ministry of Affairs announced in October 2024 that from 21 October 2024 onwards INID documents would be available from the embassy in London.
19. It is not entirely clear from the evidence set out in the Bulletin what documentation an individual would need to provide to the Iraqi embassy to obtain an INID. However, the documents the appellant would be able to provide (his expired passport, expired CSID, and birth certificate) are a combination of documents that are very likely to be sufficient. Moreover, the appellant is in a position to supplement his documentation with documents from his family in Iraq who can confirm his identify. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the combination of evidence the appellant will be able to provide to demonstrate his identify and citizenship is sufficient for him to be able to obtain an INID from the embassy in the UK.
Obtaining an INID in Ranya
20. It was not in dispute that the appellant would be returned to Erbil airport in the IKR. It was also common ground that, in order to obtain an INID in Iraq, the appellant would need to attend his local Civil Status Affairs office in Ranya.
21. Mr Khan argued that there is a real risk of the appellant being stopped at a checkpoint between Erbil and Ranya. I am not persuaded by this contention for two reasons. First, it is not supported by evidence. The burden is on the appellant to establish to the lower standard he would face a risk but Mr Khan did not identify or refer to any evidence indicating that there are checkpoints between the airport in Erbil and Ranya. Second, Mr Khan argued that SMO supports the appellant’s claim that article 3 risk can arise at checkpoints. The difficulty with this submission is that SMO refers to dangerous checkpoints between Baghdad and the IKR (see paragraph 29 of the headnote), not within the IKR. Accordingly, SMO does not assist the appellant in establishing he would face a risk at checkpoints when travelling from Erbil to Ranya. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the appellant will face a real risk of treatment violating article 3 at a checkpoint when travelling between the airport and his local Civil Status Affairs office.
22. This conclusion is reinforced by my finding of fact that the appellant would have family support and would be met at the airport by one or more of his brothers. The appellant’s brothers are likely to have INID documentation as well local experience that would assist them in navigating any difficulties encountered on the journey from the airport to Ranya. However, my finding on lack of risk on the journey from Erbil to Ranya is made irrespective of whether the appellant has family support.
Conclusion
23. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the appellant can obtain an INID prior to returning to Iraq or shortly after arriving in Iraq without facing treatment/conditions contrary to article 3 ECHR in the intervening period. For the reasons explained above, I am satisfied that the appellant can either (a) obtain an INID before returning to Iraq at the Iraqi embassy in London or (b) travel safely from Erbil to Ranya and obtain an INID at his local Civil Status affairs office in Ranya.
Wasted Costs
24. This case was scheduled to be heard on 24 June 2026. As neither the appellant nor anyone on his behalf attended the hearing, I adjourned the case. I made the following observations:
2. The appellant is represented by Dynamic Solicitors Ltd (“the firm”). No one from the firm notified the Upper Tribunal prior to the hearing. At approximately 10:15 a member of the administrative staff, at my request, telephoned the firm. She was told that no one had attended because of Counsel’s poor health and that an explanatory email would follow. At approximately 10:40 an email was sent from Mr Mohammed Alo, a solicitor at the firm. This states “Counsel we had booked for today has had a death in the family and is unable to attend the hearing today”.
3. Absent from the email is any explanation of (i) why the member of Upper Tribunal administrative staff who telephoned the firm was told Counsel was unwell, not that he or she suffered a bereavement; (ii) why the firm did not notify the Upper Tribunal prior to the hearing and waited to be contacted by the Upper Tribunal; (iii) why a member of the firm was unable to attend or a different Counsel instructed. It is also notable that the email does not identify Counsel or explain when the death occurred. The conduct of the firm is concerning and requires a response. Moreover, this may be a case where a wasted costs order against the firm is appropriate.
25. I gave the following directions:
6. Either the solicitor with conduct of this case or the senior partner at the firm must file and serve a witness statement within 7 days of this decision being sent (“the Statement”). The Statement must address the points raised in para. 3 above.
7. If, having considered the Statement, the respondent decides that she wishes to pursue a claim for wasted costs, an application for the same can either be made orally at the resumed hearing or in writing prior to the hearing.
8. The question of wasted costs will be decided at the resumed hearing.
26. Dynamic Solicitors Ltd failed to comply with my directions: they were required to file a witness statement within 7 days of the decision being sent but did not do so until 26 August 2026. Moreover, it does not appear that the statement was served on the respondent.
27. At the hearing, I was surprised to be informed by Mr Khan that he had no instructions in relation to the costs issue and was not even aware of it. He had not seen my adjournment decision.
28. I informed Mr Nappey and Mr Khan that I would determine the wasted costs issue following consideration of written submissions. Directions in respect of these submissions are set out below and must be complied with. If Dynamic Solicitors continues to disregard Upper Tribunal directions the next step is likely to be a direction pursuant to R (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin).
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal was set aside. I now remake the decision and dismiss the appellant’s appeal.

DIRECTIONS REGARDING WASTED COSTS
A. Within 3 days of this decision being sent, Dynamic Solicitors Ltd will serve on the respondent the witness statement that was filed with the Upper Tribunal on 26 August 2026.
B. Within 14 days of receipt of the witness statement, the respondent will either apply for wasted costs, giving reasons; or notify the Upper Tribunal and Dynamic Solicitors Ltd that wasted costs are not sought.
C. In the event that wasted costs are applied for, Dynamic Solicitors Ltd will file and serve a written response within 14 days of receipt of the respondent’s wasted costs application.
D. A judge will then consider the question of wasted costs on the papers.

D Sheridan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4.9.2026