Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000720
(PA/57353/2023)

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 30 April 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE

Between

AH (Iraq)
Appellant
AND

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms Dingwall, Counsel instructed by Latta & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard in Edinburgh on 10 April 2025

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant is a national of Iraq born in 1992. He appeals with permission against the 14 December 2024 First-tier Tribunal decision to dismiss his appeal on protection and human rights grounds.

2. The Appellant first claimed asylum on the 23 October 2015 when he arrived in the UK by boat. The basis of his claim was that he was at risk in his home area in Diyala because of the presence of ISIS. As a Kurd he feared persecution by them. By the time that the claim was processed, ISIS had been defeated in Diyala province, and so protection was refused, and the Appellant’s consequent appeal dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Callow). The Appellant later made a fresh claim on the basis that a risk had arisen sur place because he had been campaigning against the Iraqi government from the UK. Protection was refused for a second time on the grounds that no risk of harm had been established, and again the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Prudham) upheld the decision of the Secretary of State. This appeal, dismissed by First-tier Tribunal (Judge Farrelly) on the 14 December 2024, was concerned with the third of the Appellant’s claims for protection, which he made on the basis that he is now heavily involved in an Iraqi human rights organisation known as 17Shubat.

3. In dismissing the appeal Judge Farrelly accepted that the Appellant had been involved in such sur place activity “as described”, but found the Appellant to be of such low level in the organisation that he would not come to the adverse attention of the authorities in either Erbil or Baghdad. The primary grounds upon which leave was granted relate to these findings. In short summary it is submitted that the Tribunal misunderstood the evidence about the Appellant’s involvement in 17Shubat. Having accepted his involvement “as detailed”, the Tribunal apparently overlooks important evidence about the Appellant’s role and activities for that organisation, which include a letter in support from the group, social media posts and numerous photographs. In particular, the grounds point to evidence that the Appellant has an official role as a reporter for the group, and that he has hosted meetings of prominent members of the organisation at his home.

4. I accept that the decision contains no discernible findings on any of this material. So too does Mr Mullen. I am not however required to consider whether this omission is material, since at the hearing before me Ms Dingwall indicated that she had instructions not to pursue this ground any further, if the appeal could be resolved in the Appellant’s favour on another matter: whether he faces a real risk of falling into destitution amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq because he is undocumented.

5. There does not appear to be any dispute that the Appellant does not have a CSID. In 2022 Judge Prudham accepted that the Appellant is from Jalala, Diyala governate, and that he would have to make his way there from Baghdad; Judge Prudham found however that this would not present him with any difficulty because his family members could obtain a CSID on his behalf, and bring it to the airport. In addressing the issue of documentation in 2024 Judge Farrelly simply notes the findings of Judge Prudham, and finds that “little has changed”.

6. Before me the parties were in agreement that in so finding the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in failing to have regard to material evidence, to submissions specifically made on the Appellant’s behalf, and extant country guidance on the matter. Since Judge Prudham’s decision there have been significant developments in how the Iraqi state documents its citizens. The old ‘paper’ CSID has been entirely phased out, and replaced with the electronic INID, which requires the enrolment of biometric data, provided directly from the individual in question, at the relevant civil registry. The Appellant’s civil registry is in Diyala. His family cannot assist him in getting an INID because he has to be there in person. The Appellant needs an identity document to get through the checkpoints leaving Baghdad airport, and en route to Diyala. This he does not have. He will therefore be stuck in the airport. All of this can be inferred, the parties agree, from the guidance in SMO & KSP (Civil status documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC), and material presented by the Appellant to the First-tier Tribunal, in particular the Respondent’s Country Policy and Information Note Iraq: Internal relocation, civil documentation and returns (Version 14.0 October 2023), in particular sections 3.2:

3.2.1 A person who is unable to retrieve their existing CSID/INID or obtain a new INID is likely to face significant difficulties in accessing services and thus risk being exposed to humanitarian conditions which are likely to result in destitution sufficient to amount to a breach of paragraphs 339C and 339CA(iii) of the Immigration Rules/Article 3 of the ECHR.

3.2.2 A person who can be feasibly returned (see Feasibility of return) and is at real risk of destitution because of a lack of documents should be granted HP (unless the person is excluded from such protection).

7. This is to be read with section 6.7, which confirms that INIDs are compulsory, must be carried at all times, and are only available in person from the individual’s home registry.

8. It being accepted that the Appellant does not have any current documentation, nor the ability to access any in Baghdad airport, it follows that the appeal must be allowed on humanitarian protection grounds in accordance with the Respondent’s stated policy and the country guidance in SMO:

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.

17. A valid Iraqi passport is not recognised as acceptable proof of identity for internal travel by land.

18. Laissez Passers are confiscated on arrival and will not, for that reason, assist a returnee who seeks to travel from Baghdad to the IKR by air without a passport, INID or CSID. The Laissez Passer is not a recognised identity document for the purpose of internal travel by land.

Decisions

9. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside to the extent identified above.

10. There is an anonymity order in this protection appeal.

11. I remake the decision in the appeal as follows: the appeal is allowed on humanitarian protection grounds.

Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
11th April 2025