Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case Nos: UI-2025-000370
UI-2025-000371

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/54268/2023
PA/54271/2023
LP/08907/2024
LP/08907/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

14th November 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON

Between

MRF
RRF
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellants
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellants: Mr K Scott, Pickup and Scott Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr B Hulme, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 24th September 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellants are granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellants, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellants. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellants are nationals of Iraq from the IKR and were born in 2004 (MRF) and 2005 (RRF) and claim to fear return to Iraq on the basis of MRF’s relationship with a female in Iraq which they claimed placed them in a particular social group as potential victims of an honour crime. Their appeals came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Hawden-Beal (the judge) who dismissed their appeals on 20th November 2024. The judge found the said girlfriend’s family did not have any power nor influence within the PUK or the PUK-controlled areas of Kurdistan such that the appellants would be at risk on return.
2. The appellants challenged the judge’s decision on two grounds, first on the basis that the judge erred in assessing their account and credibility. Secondly, in relation to the feasibility of return, the judge found both the appellants had some form of copy identity documents which they said their father had sent to them before they lost contact in August 2021.
3. Both appellants stated in their witness statements that the documents were not copies of a CSID and these documents would not be sufficient to obtain further CSID or INID cards from the embassy in London. CSID cards were only available from the Iraqi Embassy in London if the Civil Status Affairs office in the appellants’ hometown had not transferred over to the digital INID system. The CPIN on return documentation dated October 2023 confirmed that in Iraq or the IKR, CSID cards were no longer issued, and the appellants would have to enrol their biometrics at the CSA office to be issued with a new INID card and which could only be accomplished in Sulaymaniyah. In relation to the matter of the Iraqi Embassy in London issuing INID cards this as submitted by the respondent was only on a trial basis and the appellants would still have to produce documents such as the CSID documentation. The documents were not CSID cards but INID cards.
4. In the event I issued a decision following the hearing before me on 27th May 2025 dated 18th July 2025 which dismissed the challenge to the judge’s assessment of the appellants’ accounts and credibility, but it was recorded that the representative for the Secretary of State conceded ground 2 on the basis of the consideration of the CSID/INID cards.
5. Judge Hawden-Beal’s decision was preserved together with its findings save that I set aside [45] and [46] of the decision only as follows:
“45. But the next question has to be whether these copy documents will also be sufficient to obtain copy CSID/INID cards from the Embassy. It is clear from SMO(CG) [2022] UKUT 110(IAC)) (SMO2) that replacement CSID car[d]s are only available from the Iraqi Embassy in London if the Civil Status Affairs (CSA) office in the appellants hometown has not transferred over to the digital INID system. The CPIN on Returns, documentation and internal relocation from October 2023 makes it clear at Annexes E and F that CSID cards are no longer being issued in Iraq or the IKR and therefore the appellants will have to attend at the CSA in order to provide their biometrics to be issued with the new INID cards, which means that they can only do this in Sulaymaniyah.
46. However, the respondent today had submitted evidence that, as of October 2024, the Iraqi embassy in London has started to issue INID cards and that in order to obtain such documentation, the appellants will have to fill out the application form and supply their CSID, passport, their nationality certificate or national card along with proof of their address. I note that the first appellant claims not to have his CSID card, but the second appellant does and therefore the first appellant can be traced from the information upon the second appellant’s CSID card. It therefore would appear to be possible for the appellants to obtain INID cards in order to return to Iraq.”,
Pending re-making, I also dismissed the conclusion on dismissal.
6. The matter was brought before me on 24th September 2025 and both the appellants attended to give oral evidence.
The Documentation
7. A composite bundle of 356 pages was presented which included the appellants’ bundle of documents before the First-tier Tribunal together with the respondent’s bundle before the First-tier Tribunal for both appellants. This composite bundle ran to 356 pages. Also produced were supplementary witness statements of both appellants together with copies of their ID documents and an appellants’ skeleton argument.
8. I note that Country Policy and Information Note Iraq: Internal relocation, civil documentation and returns was updated by the respondent in September 2025.
The Hearing
9. Both appellants gave oral evidence at the hearing, and I record relevant parts of their evidence in turn starting with MRF, the older brother. He replied when asked what family members there were in Iraq “I haven’t got anybody in Iraq and not in contact with them”. He then clarified by stating that in the past he had his father, mother and siblings over there, but he was not in contact with them and did not know where they were now. He said in the past he had a friend but since the incident happened he had not been in contact with anyone in Iraq. He stated he had a picture of an Iraqi ID card but not the actual document and that this document was dated August 2021. He arrived in the UK in July 2021 and at that point he asked his father to send him a picture of his ID card but since August 2021 had not been in contact. These photos were sent by WhatsApp. He explained that his INID card was with his father because he was underage and they could not hold their documents, and their parents held their documents.
10. He stated that when flying from Erbil Airport he got to the airport not with an INID but with a passport.
11. Mr Hulme cross-examined MRF and pointed out that passports could not be used at Iraqi checkpoints and he would need an INID pass to get through and how did he proceed? He responded that his father accompanied both of the appellants to the airport and he, the father, was holding the ID card.
12. MRF confirmed he had tried to call his parents since August 2021 and had tried so many times and had tried to contact them through the Red Cross. MRF was asked why there was no evidence from the Red Cross showing that and he stated he informed the Home Office that he had contacted the Red Cross to ask if they could help him contact the family. He confirmed that he knew he needed to prove that he had been in contact with the Red Cross. When he contacted the Red Cross, they stated that they could not provide information for him, but he did not know why.
13. He stated he tried to call his family last week. When asked why he had not produced call logs of attempted calls, he stated his mobile had broken last Wednesday and his phone seemed to be dead. It was pointed out to him that there was no mention of his phone being broken in his latest witness statement.
14. MRF was asked whether he had tried using Facebook to contact people in Iraq, but he confirmed that his father did not have a Facebook account and he was not familiar with social media and only had a mobile phone. Other family members did not have Facebook and were not familiar with social media. His mother did not have a mobile phone and did not know how to use a mobile phone.
15. He confirmed that he had a sister born in 2012 and a brother born in 2014 in Iraq but that he had no friends who lived in Iraq. He confirmed he went to school until the age of 17 when the problem occurred and then he had to leave.
16. When asked whether any of his friends from Iraq could assist him to contact people in Iraq, he responded that it was very dangerous and because of the problem which caused him to leave Iraq notwithstanding that Mr Hulme identified that MRF was still friends with him on Facebook. MRF confirmed that if he ever managed to find his family, he would ask them to provide him with the ID card.
17. RRF gave evidence and adopted his witness statement dated 23rd September 2025 and was cross-examined.
18. He confirmed that the family members he had in Iraq were his mother, father and younger sister and brother.
19. He confirmed that he last had contact with them in August 2021 and he last tried to contact them three days ago.
20. He stated that he tried to contact them on WhatsApp, but he had tried so many times including three days ago and there was no answer, nothing.
21. He was asked why he had not provided call logs to show the attempts, and he stated that nobody had asked him to provide this, and he had also contacted the Red Cross so many times to ask them to provide evidence, but they did not. He stated that it was, in fact, his older brother MRF who in fact had contacted the Red Cross. He was present when his brother called the Red Cross and that his social worker had spoken to the Red Cross. When asked what social media he used, he confirmed it was Facebook and Snapchat.
22. RRF stated he did not have any Facebook friends who lived in Iraq because he was only 15 when he left and then he did not have a mobile or social media. He did have classmates but was not in touch with them after five years of living in the UK. He stated that he had not tried to find old classmates on Facebook because in Iraq they only knew each other by their first names because they had their father’s name and there were hundreds of people with the same first name.
23. He had no friends in the UK who were originally from Iraq.
24. He confirmed that the photographs of the INIDs were sent to him by WhatsApp.
25. When asked how it was that his national ID card was with his father, he said it was because he was 15 years old at the time and his parents kept the documents so as not to be lost.
26. It was also put to him that it was more likely that he could contact his family who could provide an INID card. He stated he would love to find his family, and he missed them, and he had not spoken to them in five years.
27. It was also pointed out to him that he would need documents to get to the airport.
28. In submissions Mr Hulme submitted that I should dismiss the appeal as it was more likely that the appellants had contact with their family and who could provide them with the INIDs; the photos showed the INIDs existed.
29. The CPIN at 6.7.6 confirmed that CSIDs had to be handed in when INIDs were obtained. These appellants must have had CSIDs beforehand and would have handed over their CSIDs in order to obtain the INIDs. This form of identification was the latest document. There was no risk of ill-treatment as they would be redocumented and I was referred to 3.7.1 of the CPIN.
30. I was also referred to the CPIN of October 2023 on internal relocation at 6.7.6.
31. The Civil Status office would retain these documents.
32. There was no evidence of any contact with the Red Cross and no evidence of attempts to call the family. It would be reasonable for the appellants to make attempts to contact the family. There was an inconsistency between the two appellants’ evidence, the second appellant said he used his passport to go through the checkpoints, but the INID or CSID was required.
33. Mr Scott submitted that the appellants had been credible and consistent as regard the contact with the family since August 2021 and that since they arrived in the UK, they had tried to contact the family through the Red Cross and themselves without success. It was accepted the original documents were with the family but both appellants had stated they had lost contact with the family. They only had copies of the INID documents, and it was not clear they would be able to use the photocopies to obtain replacements with the Iraqi Embassy here. The appellants would not be able to safely return to Iraq.
34. At the close of proceedings MRF stated he wished to make further submissions. He stated they did not have CSID cards and that the younger brother was not familiar with the process, but he was older and therefore he knew what had happened when going to the airport. He had a list of requirements demanded by the Iraqi Embassy to show what needed to be provided when obtaining replacement documentation. He had not been told he needed to provide call logs. They could not use other Iraqi people to help them find their family because they had got political issues themselves and there would be a problem if they got in touch with their family. The systems are very different in Iraq and if you travelled abroad your parents must sign for you. The father had come into the airport with them to make sure that they were alright.
Analysis
35. Paragraph 3.6.3 of the CPIN 2025 (and indeed the CPIN 2023), reflecting SMO2, confirmed that it is necessary for individuals to have an INID card in order to live and travel within Iraq without encountering treatment or conditions contrary to Article 3 ECHR.
36. The current CPIN September 2025 (which also appears to reflect the October 2023 CPIN) relates that
3.7 Key civil documentation a. Iraqi National Identity Card (INID)
3.7.1 The Iraqi National Identity Card (INID) replaces the Iraqi Nationality Certificate (INC) and the Civil Status ID Card (CSID). In 2023, the Danish Immigration service indicated that since 2017, the uptake of the INID has been slow but estimated that 85-90% of people in the KRI have now obtained the INID. INID uptake figures in the rest of Iraq could not be found in the sources consulted (see Bibliography).
3.7.2 The INID is linked to a record of a person’s biometric data and can only be issued in person, in Iraq. It is valid for 10 years and after this, a person must return to their home governorate to receive a renewed document. When a person’s civil status has changed, e.g., through marriage or divorce, they must renew their INID through submitting a new application.
37. I bear in mind the findings made by the First-tier Tribunal Judge which were preserved. That is my starting point as per Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKAIT 702. In effect the accounts of the appellants in relation to the reason why they left Iraq were found not to be credible. I do not accept there are political reasons why the appellants cannot approach their friends and other relatives in Iraq. It is in that context that I also consider the further evidence in relation to the identity documents. I have taken note of SMO2.
38. The Iraqi Nationality Identity Document, INID, is a government issued electronic biometric card which holders are required to carry at all times. The INID replaces the Civil Status Identity Document, the CSID, but CSIDs remain valid ID documents for legal and administrative purposes while the INID rollout continues.
39. What is clear in these appeals is that both appellants have been issued with INIDs in Iraq. Copies of those documents are said to be with the parents and copies of those documents were provided in August 2021 and showed that they are valid in both cases from 25th April 2019 to 24th April 2029. In both cases the biometric strip can be clearly seen on the back of the document. It is thus clear that valid INID cards have been issued to the appellants.
40. I have considered the appellants’ oral evidence and also their witness statements. The appellants both asserted that the documents remained with their father in Iraq. What is clear from the CPINs is that CSID cards or INID cards must be used to travel across Iraq. The first appellant initially stated that he managed to get through the checkpoints to Erbil airport with his passport until it was pointed out by Mr Huhne that he would have needed an INID (or CSID). He then changed his account which undermined his credibility. The second appellant confirmed that the father took the appellants to the airport in July 2021 post the issue of the INID cards and that they managed to pass through checkpoints to get to the airport. Indeed, the second appellant confirmed that his father had used and retained the relevant documentation. The appellants also confirmed that the documents were with their parents.
41. Clearly the father managed to travel from Erbil Airport back to his home because on the appellants’ own evidence they managed to extract photocopies of the INIDs from the father and these were sent by him by social media, that is WhatsApp. The first appellant stated that his father was not familiar with social media but that is exactly what WhatsApp is. The appellants, however, maintained that they no longer had no contact with their family.
42. I simply do not accept that these appellants are not in contact with their family. There was a lack of evidence of attempted contact. No written confirmation or information from the Red Cross as to attempts on tracing was produced. Indeed, the appellants confirmed that the Red Cross had refused to provide the same which is unusual. Despite attempting to contact the family even three days ago, they had not produced any call logs or their phones. The first appellant maintained that his phone was dead but that was not the case for the second appellant. Even though the second appellant stated that his older brother attempted to contact the Red Cross his phone in relation to attempted contacts with his parents was not produced.
43. Both appellants maintained they could not contact their family or relatives or friends on social media. Both were at school until they left, both would have had friends, and there was no reason for them not to contact their friends at home bearing in mind that their account in relation to the relationship of the first appellant was not held credible. I do not accept in the circumstances there would be any danger afforded to the friends through contact with the appellants.
44. The second appellant also confirmed that he had younger siblings and that he himself had Facebook and Snapchat. For these young men to suggest that they have come straight from school and have absolutely no contact and are unable to contact any friends in Iraq or request those Iraqi contacts whom they know in London to assist with contacting their family in Iraq is simply not credible. The second appellant maintained that it would not be possible to contact friends on Facebook, not because they did not have Facebook, but because he did not know their surnames at school. Judicial notice can be taken that on Facebook individuals can be tracked by various points of reference, name, school, photograph, age and geographical location.
45. Contrary to the first appellant’s evidence their father used social media by way of WhatsApp, and I do not accept that a father who takes the care to escort his children to the airport to leave Iraq would not be contactable on social media.
46. In line with SMO2 I find that these appellants even if they are not in possession of their INID cards in the UK, are either in contact with their family or will be able to reconnect with their family, and obtain their cards from their family on return or shortly after return to Iraq.
47. I can accept that these appellants will be returned to Baghdad, but no evidence was provided to me to suggest that the father would be unable to travel to Baghdad and to accompany them as he had done previously in 2021 or relatives/friends would not be able to get to Baghdad with the relevant documentation to assist.
48. I consider that the appellants could be redocumented on arrival at the airport or shortly after arrival at a location that does not require passing through a checkpoint. If the appellants retain contact with their family or can reconnect with the family, as I have found, I do not accept that these appellants will have to access or extract INID cards from the Iraqi Embassy in London and thus the question of the requirements does not prevail.
49. I therefore dismiss their appeals on protection and human rights grounds.

Helen Rimington

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

31st November 2025