Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000402
HYBRID HEARING
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/64247/2023
LP/10956/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 23 July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

BHS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Hussain, Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms Newton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 14 July 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the appellant] (and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified) 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 (and/or other person). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is an Iraqi citizen. He claimed asylum on 21 December 2021 and the Respondent refused his application on 22 November 2023. The Appellant appealed this decision and the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed his appeal in a decision promulgated on 17 November 2024. The Appellant appealed this decision and initially permission to appeal was refused. However, permission to appeal was granted on 26 March 2025 by an Upper Tribunal Judge solely with regard to the documentation issue.
2. The appeal was listed for a hearing before us on the above date. All parties appeared at the hearing centre with the exception of Mr Hussain who had been given permission to appear via CVP.
3. An anonymity order was made in the First-tier and we extend that order to cover these proceedings.
SUBMISSIONS
4. Mr Hussain adopted the grounds of appeal. He submitted that the single issue was the Appellant’s access to a CSID card. He submitted that the Respondent had accepted the Appellant had lost his CSID card and consequently the FTT’s finding that the Appellant could be reunited with his documentation was contrary to what the Respondent had accepted in her decision letter. The FTT failed to explain how the Appellant could safely travel to his home area in Sulaymaniyah without such a document and this undermined the article 3 ECHR assessment.
5. Mr Hussain further argued that paragraph 5.1.3 of CPIN Iraq: Internal and relocation, civil documentation and returns October 2023 incorrectly reflected the source material “Inspection report on Home Office country of origin information, Iraq and Myanmar January 2023” and the evidence in the CPIN was insufficient to depart from the country guidance decision of SMO & KSP (Civil status documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 00110. In short, he submitted, if the Appellant was undocumented the information in the CPIN was not strong enough to depart from SMO as the evidence of Dr Fatah (referred to in paragraph 5.1.3) had already been considered by the Tribunal in SMO. Furthermore, Annex D of the CPIN contained an email which was misleading and was inadequate. At the date of decision the Appellant did not have a replacement INID and there was insufficient information about the process and time it would take to obtain a replacement INID and it could not be assumed one would be issued. The FTT had failed to give reasons for departing from SMO and there was a material error in law.
6. Ms Newton adopted the Rule 24 response and argued there was no error of law. The Judge made adequate findings on this issue (see paragraphs [25-28] of the FTT determination) finding the Appellant could be returned directly to his home area where he could apply for a new document and/or be reacquainted with his existing document with the assistance of his family. Ms Newton referred to paragraphs 3.7.9, 16.17.1, 16.17.2 and Annex D of the aforementioned CPIN and submitted the Appellant had stated he had been issued with an INID and had his biometrics taken and she argued that Annex D confirmed he could start the process to obtain a replacement INID in this country and thereafter appoint an attorney in Iraq to collect the replacement paperwork. The FTT found he could obtain replacement documents and this was a finding open to the FTT. The CPIN made clear that if he was returned direct to the IKR he would be granted entry clearance. She submitted that the grounds amounted to a disagreement with these findings.
DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS
7. Following an oral hearing we reserved our decision. Having considered the submissions and paperwork we found there was no material error in law.
8. The FTT had rejected the Appellant’s claim of events in Iraq and found him to be a person whose evidence lacked credibility. These adverse findings were not challenged in the grounds of appeal. Having rejected the Appellant's account the FTT concluded the Appellant could be returned direct to the IKR and once there he could either be reunited with his documents or assisted in obtaining a replacement.
9. The appeal grounds concentrated on the reference by the FTT to the CSID and the lack of overall findings about how such a document could be obtained. Whilst we accept a replacement CSID could not be obtained the FTT nevertheless concluded the Appellant could redocument with the help of family. Whilst the FTT could have provided more detail about how it reached its conclusions this did not amount to a material error in law because for the reasons hereafter given redocumentation in this case was possible.
10. Mr Hussain had submitted the Respondent had accepted the Appellant had lost his documents including his CSID and passport but the Respondent’s decision letter does not actually make that concession. Page 55 of the composite bundle referenced the fact the Appellant’s “return to Iraq is considered feasible although you are not currently in possession of your CSID”. Even if that concession could be read as stating the Respondent accepted he did not have his document this paragraph did not make that concession as regards the Appellant’s INID.
11. In his asylum form (page 79 of the composite bundle) the Appellant stated he had been issued with a CSID, passport and INID and he stated he had provided his fingerprints for some of the documents. The fact he claimed to have lost all of them was the thrust of Mr Hussain’s submissions today.
12. The Tribunal in SMO indicated that the process for obtaining a replacement INID, where one had previously been issued, could not be started outside of Iraq. However, since SMO the Iraqi Embassy have confirmed that this is no longer the case. Annex D contains an email exchange and contrary to Mr Hussain’s initial submissions does not refer to this process starting in Iraq. The email in Annex D summarises the correct process which is:
a. The loss of the INID must be reported to local police in the United Kingdom.
b. The police report must then be certified by the Iraqi Consulate.
c. The Consulate will then prepare an official report including the applicant’s signature and fingerprint.
d. The applicant must provide a written declaration affirming they have not renounced Iraqi nationality.
e. The application is the sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA).
f. A power of attorney must be granted to someone in Iraq to follow up with the relevant authorities and to collect the INID.
13. The FTT’s decision was brief but referred to the CPIN and to the option of family members assisting with redocumentation. Whilst Mr Hussain argued that the Appellant currently did not have an INID that did not mean the Appellant could not follow the process identified above and obtain one. It was never suggested to the FTT that the Appellant would renounce his Iraqi nationality and that was not something advanced by Mr Hussain today.
14. In summary, the email in Annex D confirms the process of replacing a lost INID can begin while the person is abroad as long as the person has previously been issued with an INID and had provided biometrics to obtain one (which he had). The FTT found that he had family to turn to and that family could assist him in obtaining redocumentation which could be done by one of them using a power of attorney.
15. It therefore followed that even if the FTT was wrong about the Appellant being able to obtain a replacement CSID the decision does not disclose a material error because he was previously the holder of an INID and there is a procedure to obtain a replacement INID. It was not argued before the FTT that the content of the email annexed to Annex D was incorrect.
16. Mr Hussain argued that the fact the Appellant currently did not have an INID meant he was undocumented and was therefore not returnable. We rejected this argument as there are many circumstances where documents are obtained at a later stage. An example of one is a Laissez Passer (emergency travel document) which is obtained when a decision to remove a person is taken. Whilst a different process the obtaining of a replacement INID would follow a similar process albeit the timeframe may be longer.
17. We were satisfied, as per R (SG (Iraq)) v SSHD [2013] 1 WLR 41 (CA), at §47, that the new evidence about INIDs enabled us to depart from SMO as there were “very strong grounds supported by cogent evidence” to do so.
18. We found that although the FTT decision was brief and could have contained more explanation, the core finding that his family could assist with the redocumentation was not flawed, for the reasons given above, and consequently the decision did not disclose a material error in law.

Notice of Decision
There was no error in law and the decision of the FTT shall stand.

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

17 July 2025