Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000759

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/68436/2023
LP/08817/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 21 August 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON

Between

KA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Sadiq of Adam Solicitors.
For the Respondent: Dr Ibisi, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 1 August 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
1. In a determination promulgated on 17 June 2025 a panel of the Upper Tribunal found an error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which it set aside, although preserved the findings at [20] - [31] of the earlier decision.
2. The scope of this hearing is limited to considering the feasibility of the Appellant’s return to Iraq and the issue of documentation. The Appellant is not entitled to a grant of leave to remain on any other basis.
3. No further documents or evidence has been provided by the Appellant. The Secretary of State has provided a skeleton argument dated 24 July 2025 in the following terms:

2. The Respondent notes this appeal will be remade on the matter of feasibility of return and redocumentation.
3. The Respondent continues to rely upon the Reasons for Refusal Letter (RFRL) dated 13/12/2023, specifically the paragraph titled “Humanitarian Protection”, and the Respondent’s Review (RR) dated 06/09/2024 paragraph 29-37.
4. The R maintains that enforced returns to the IKR are feasible as per Annex C of the October 2023 CPIN Iraq: internal relocation, civil documentation and returns, which is referenced at paragraphs 3.6.2, 3.8.12 and 5.1.1.-2. It is also stated at 2.6.3 and 3.1.1 of the CPIN that returns can be carried out to the IKR. It is submitted that SMO2 also notes the feasibility of return at 144(7) and 144(26).: “[144(7)] Return of former residents of the Iraqi Kurdish Region (IKR) will be to the IKR and all other Iraqis will be to Baghdad. The Iraqi authorities will allow an Iraqi national (P) in the United Kingdom to enter Iraq only if P is in possession of a current or expired Iraqi passport relating to P, or a Laissez Passer. “[144(26)] There are regular direct flights from the UK to the Iraqi Kurdish Region and returns might be to Baghdad or to that region. It is for the respondent to state whether she intends to remove to Baghdad, Erbil or Sulaymaniyah. The R therefore submits A can be returned directly to the KRI.
5. As no further evidence has been served upon the Respondent, the R submits that the matter in dispute has been adequately set out in the aforementioned documents provided by the R for this appeal.

4. There was no cross-examination and so the appeal procedure by way of submissions only. Dr Ibisi relied upon the evidence referred to in the skeleton argument and submitted that the appeal should be dismissed.
5. Mr Sadiq accepted that he had to concede that the point of return for the Appellant would be to the IKR. That is factually correct. As the Appellant is from Ranya City in Sulamaniyah Governorate he is likely to be returned to the airport in that city.
6. Mr Sadiq submitted that the difficulty for the Appellant, where a real risk would arise, will be in travelling throughout the IKR or Iraq to get to his home or to live a normal life in that country.
7. It is accepted that an individual is required to possess the necessary identity documents and indeed reference is made to this in the country guidance caselaw and the CPIN referred to in the skeleton argument.
8. The Appellant claims that his CSID was confiscated by an agent in Turkey and that he could not obtain a new INID without returning to his home area, hence exposing him to a risk of harm.
9. The Secretary of State’s position is that as the Appellant’s core claim was found to lack credibility and he was found not to be a credible witness, he has failed to demonstrate (i) that he did not have a family or support network to return to in Iraq and (ii) that either he or his family did not hold or have access to his original CSID/INID, allowing him to return to his home area or relocate elsewhere.
10. It is not disputed that the CSID is no longer issued in Iraqi although it is still accepted as a valid document as previously, until they have all been replaced. The country material shows that following the rollout of the INID in 2015 a very substantial proportion of Iraqi nationals have obtained the new form of identity.
11. The Appellant does not claim to have done so and there is insufficient evidence to enable me to find he has and therefore will have provided his biometrics which would enable a duplicate document to be obtained if he had in fact lost the original.
12. Focusing upon the Appellant’s claim in relation to his CSID, it cannot be ignored that the burden of proof is upon him and that he has been found not to be a witness of truth. The Appellant was effectively put proof by the Secretary of State in the refusal letter in relation to this issue. His claim an agent took his CSID in Turkey was rejected as the Appellant has failed to provide any further evidence or assistance to prove it. I accept the Appellant will find it difficult to prove a negative and cannot call an agent based in Turkey to give evidence to confirm what he has claimed, making it necessary to consider the weight that can be given to this claim together with the evidence in the round.
13. Having done so I find the Appellant cannot escape the adverse credibility findings. The burden of proof is upon him to the lower standard. I find he has failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that, although he has been found to have lied in relation to the other respects, in relation to this matter he is telling the truth. I do not find the Appellant has proved that his CSID was taken from him by the agent in Turkey. It must therefore either be with him of his family in Iraq.
14. On that basis I find that the position is as set out in the Refusal letter that the Appellant can be returned directly to Iraq with his CSID, or his family can arrange to meet him at the airport and hand it to him, to enable him to travel freely to his home area.
15. In conclusion, I find the Appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proof upon him to the required standard to show that his return to Iraq is not feasible or to show that he is not in possession of the relevant documents required to live a normal life within his home state.
Notice of Decision
16. Appeal dismissed.

C J Hanson

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 August 2025