Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000293

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/61311/2023
LP/08653/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 8th of May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’CALLAGHAN
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE Ó CEALLAIGH KC

Between

A A
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Jegarajah, instructed by Barnes, Harrild & Dyer Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Parvar, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 26 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

Introduction and background
1. The appellant AA appeals the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Rakhim who dismissed his appeal against the refusal of his protection claim. Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Aldridge.
2. AA is an Iraqi citizen born in May 2004. He is of Kurdish ethnicity. He is now 20 years old but was a child when he left Iraq and for significant parts of the asylum process.
3. On 1 August 2021 the appellant left Iraq, arriving in the United Kingdom on 15 August 2021. He claimed asylum the next day.
4. The basis of his asylum claim is that his brother eloped with a girl from another tribe. The appellant was seen in the car with them when they eloped. The tribe was informed and his brother and the girl were killed. His family tried to reconcile with the tribe, but they threatened his family and tried to extort money from them.
5. The appellant says the brother of the girl killed had consistently tried to provoke him. There was an incident in August 2021, resulting in the girl’s father attending the appellant’s home to threaten the appellant’s father, saying he would kill the appellant to satisfy the tribe’s honour. The appellant fears the Balak tribe will kill him as result of these issues if he is returned to Iraq. He is in effect at risk of honour-killing.
6. On 1 November 2023 the Respondent refused his asylum claim. It was not accepted that he was at ongoing risk from the Balak tribe; the claims of the girl's family being powerful were considered vague; the claims in respect of relocating were found to be inconsistent and it was deemed that documentation could be secured to facilitate his return. The respondent maintained that position in the review of 22 June 2024.
7. On 24 September 2024 the appellant’s appeal was heard by Judge Rakhim. The appeal was heard remotely.
Grounds of appeal
8. The grounds of appeal are relatively narrow and may be summarised as follows:
a. Ground 1: The FTT erred in failing to apply the country guidance in SMO and KSP (Civil status documentation, article 15) (CG)) Iraq [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC) in respect of the possibility of the appellant being able to obtain a CSID/INID.
b. Ground 2: The FTT erred in failing to apply the guidance in Joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010: Child, vulnerable adult and sensitive appellant guidance when assessing the credibility of the appellant’s account.
9. Granting permission to appeal First-tier Tribunal Judge Aldridge noted:
“It is arguable that the judge has failed to provide adequate reasoning in respect of redocumentation and failed to demonstrate that consideration in respect of credibility of the age of the appellant has been applied.”

The hearing
10. We were greatly assisted by submissions from Ms Jegarajah and Mr Parvar. Mr Parvar upon questioning quite properly accepted that Ground 1 was made out, and that the error was material. As a consequence the key submissions focussed on Ground 2.
Decision and reasons
11. As noted above there was ultimately no dispute that Ground 1 was made out.
12. In SMO and KSP (Civil status documentation, article 15) (CG)) Iraq [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC) the Tribunal gave the following guidance:
“11. The CSID is being replaced with a new biometric Iraqi National Identity Card - the INID. As a general matter, it is necessary for an individual to have one of these two documents in order to live and travel within Iraq without encountering treatment or conditions which are contrary to Article 3 ECHR. Many of the checkpoints in the country are manned by Shia militia who are not controlled by the GOI and are unlikely to permit an individual without a CSID or an INID to pass.
12. In order to obtain an INID, an individual must personally attend the Civil Status Affairs ("CSA") office at which they are registered to enrol their biometrics, including fingerprints and iris scans. The CSA offices in which INID terminals have been installed are unlikely - as a result of the phased replacement of the CSID system - to issue a CSID, whether to an individual in person or to a proxy. The reducing number of CSA offices in which INID terminals have not been installed will continue to issue CSIDs to individuals and their proxies upon production of the necessary information.
13. Notwithstanding the phased transition to the INID within Iraq, replacement CSIDs remain available through Iraqi Consular facilities but only for those Iraqi nationals who are registered at a CSA office which has not transferred to the digital INID system. Where an appellant is able to provide the Secretary of State with the details of the specific CSA office at which he is registered, the Secretary of State is prepared to make enquiries with the Iraqi authorities in order to ascertain whether the CSA office in question has transferred to the INID system.
14. Whether an individual will be able to obtain a replacement CSID whilst in the UK also depends on the documents available and, critically, the availability of the volume and page reference of the entry in the Family Book in Iraq, which system continues to underpin the Civil Status Identity process. Given the importance of that information, some Iraqi citizens are likely to recall it. Others are not. Whether an individual is likely to recall that information is a question of fact, to be considered against the factual matrix of the individual case and taking account of the background evidence. The Family Book details may also be obtained from family members, although it is necessary to consider whether such relatives are on the father's or the mother's side because the registration system is patrilineal.
15. Once in Iraq, it remains the case that an individual is expected to attend their local CSA office in order to obtain a replacement document. All CSA offices have now re-opened, although the extent to which records have been destroyed by the conflict with ISIL is unclear, and is likely to vary significantly depending on the extent and intensity of the conflict in the area in question.
16. An individual returnee who is not from Baghdad is not likely to be able to obtain a replacement document there, and certainly not within a reasonable time. Neither the Central Archive nor the assistance facilities for IDPs are likely to render documentation assistance to an undocumented returnee.”
13. The Tribunal also held [60]:
“CSIDs continue to be available through the Iraqi Embassy in the UK but only for individuals who are registered at a Civil Status Affairs office which has not transferred to the digital INID system.”
14. It was not in dispute that the appellant did not have a CSID or passport and that his documentation had been taken by the agent. It was the position of the respondent in her decision that the appellant could however be redocumented.
15. The FTTJ found that the appellant was in contact with his family and that they could assist him in being redocumented. In particular, he had adult siblings and parents who could help [48]. His family members could also assist in obtaining his Family Book details which would help him obtain a replacement CSID whilst in the United Kingdom [52].
16. The above findings are, as the appellant submits and the respondent accepted before us, contrary to the decision of the Upper Tribunal in the country guidance case of SMO. It is clear from that case that: (i) in order to obtain a CSID from the consulate it would be necessary for AA not only to have access to the Family Book, but also to be registered at a Civil Status Affairs office that has not transferred to the digital INID system; (ii) it is not possible for AA to have a proxy obtain a CSA/INID document without him personally attending the office at which he is registered. This is also consistent with the respondent’s own CPIN which now provides:
“Following the replacement of the CSID with the INID, nationals of Iraq are no longer able to reapply for CSIDs either in Iraq or abroad and can only obtain an initial INID, in person, in the governorate they originate from.”
17. We therefore accept that the FTT erred in law in failing to follow the guidance in SMO above. It is clear that the FTTJ has not engaged with the appellant's case that he would have difficulties obtaining a CSA/INID, the lack of which may lead to a real risk of a breach of Article 3 ECHR.
18. The issue in respect of Ground 2 was less straightforward. Nevertheless we have concluded that this ground too is made out.
19. As noted by Ms Jegarajah in submissions, AA was just 15 years old when he experienced the events that he claims ultimately led to him leaving Iraq, although they endured until he was 17. He was an adult when he was substantively interviewed, but a child when he gave his first witness statement and underwent his screening interview.
20. It is plain that the FTTJ comprehensively disbelieved the appellant. Particular criticisms include that his account was inconsistent with that given in his initial witness statement [29], and that he appeared to have a lack of understanding of his precise role in events where he was assisting his family [21][23]; that his account was in that respect “vague”. It is held against him that in his screening interview and initial statement he gave insufficient detail (though he was an adult by the time of his substantive interview) [20][38]. There were discrepancies in his account as to dates [26] and he was unable to give a detailed explanation of the rank of the officer in question (father of the girl) [31] or his connections to the KDP.
21. What is entirely absent from the FTT determination is any evidence that consideration was given to the fact that the appellant was a child when the events in Iraq are alleged to have taken place, and at important initial stages of the asylum process.
22. The Joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010: Child, vulnerable adult and sensitive appellant guidance provides as follows in respect of the evidence of children:
“10.3 Assessing evidence
Take account of potentially corroborative evidence
Be aware:
i. Children often do not provide as much detail as adults in recalling experiences and may often manifest their fears differently from adults;
ii. Some forms of disability cause or result in impaired memory;
iii. The order and manner in which evidence is given may be affected by mental, psychological or emotional trauma or disability;
iv. Comprehension of questioning may have been impaired.”
23. The guidance also provides:
“13. The weight to be placed upon factors of vulnerability may differ depending on the matter under appeal, the burden and standard of proof and whether the individual is a witness or an appellant.
14. Consider the evidence, allowing for possible different degrees of understanding by witnesses and appellant compared to those are not vulnerable, in the context of evidence from others associated with the appellant and the background evidence before you. Where there were clear discrepancies in the oral evidence, consider the extent to which the age, vulnerability or sensitivity of the witness was an element of that discrepancy or lack of clarity.
15. The decision should record whether the Tribunal has concluded the appellant (or a witness) is a child, vulnerable or sensitive, the effect the Tribunal considered the identified vulnerability had in assessing the evidence before it and thus whether the Tribunal was satisfied whether the appellant had established his or her case to the relevant standard of proof. In asylum appeals, weight should be given to objective indications of risk rather than necessarily to a state of mind.”
24. In AM (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] INLR 839 Sir Ernest Ryder, the Senior President of Tribunals said as follows [30]:
“To assist parties and tribunals a Practice Direction 'First-tier and Upper Tribunal Child, Vulnerable Adult and Sensitive Witnesses', was issued by the Senior President, Sir Robert Carnwath, with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor on 30 October 2008. In addition, joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010 was issued by the then President of UTIAC, Blake J and the acting President of the FtT (IAC), Judge Arfon-Jones. The directions and guidance contained in them are to be followed and for the convenience of practitioners, they are annexed to this judgment. Failure to follow them will most likely be a material error of law.” [Emphasis supplied]
25. While it is clear that there were a significant number of disparate matters that the Tribunal considered weighed against the appellant’s credibility, there is equally no doubt that several of these related to matters such as the vagueness of his initial account and a lack of professed understanding of the precise actions, positions and intentions of adults. In our view, the Tribunal was required by virtue of the above Presidential guidance to take into account that the appellant was a child when these incidents took place, and also when he gave his first accounts of them. That, as is clear from the guidance, requires consideration to be given to the fact that children may well know less detail of their claims than adults, and may also be less likely to set out all the detail they need to in interviews (see also AA (unattended children) Afghanistan CG [2012] UKUT 16 (IAC)). There is no evidence that the FTT considered the Presidential guidance; indeed in our view it is quite clear that it did not do so.
26. As the Court of Appeal held in AM, failure to follow the Presidential guidance is likely to be a material error of law and that is the case here.
27. We raised with the parties the question of whether the appeal should be reheard by us or remitted for a full rehearing. Both parties considered that the matter should be remitted. In view of the need for full findings of fact we agree.
28. For the reasons set out above, the decision is set aside with no findings preserved.
Notice of Decision
The decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Rakhim of 6 October 2024 did involve the making of a material error of law. That decision is set aside and the matter is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a full rehearing with no findings of fact preserved.

Greg Ó Ceallaigh KC

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

6 May 2025