Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-001143
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/52541/2022
IA/06571/2022

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 18 August 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LODATO

Between

DZSA
(ANONYMITY ORDERED)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Unrepresented
For the Respondent: Ms Blackburn, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 12 June 2026

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. I have decided to maintain the anonymity order originally made in these proceedings by the First-tier Tribunal (‘the FtT’) because the underlying claim involves international protection issues in that the appellant claims to fear persecution or serious harm on return to Iraq. In reaching this decision, I am mindful of the fundamental principle of open justice, but I am satisfied, taking the appellant’s case at its highest for these purposes, that the potential grave risks outweigh the rights of the public to know of his identity.

2. This remaking decision should be read in conjunction with my decision, dated 4 February 2026, to allow the appellant’s appeal because the FtT involved a narrow, but material, error of law. I found that the judge had erred in how she decided the issue of whether the appellant would encounter Article 3 conditions on return to Iraq on account of his access to necessary civil identification documentation. The FtT judge’s fact-finding analysis in relation to the appellant’s primary international protection claim was preserved on the strength of the lawful rejection of his credibility about these matters. The matter was adjourned for a remaking hearing which I heard on 8 April 2026. The appellant gave evidence about the documentation issue and was cross-examined. I reserved my decision at the conclusion of the hearing. Before deciding the appeal, relevant country guidance was issued in AH, AK & AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI) Iraq CG [2026] UKUT 00150 (IAC). I issued further directions to enable the parties to make submissions on the recently issued country guidance and arranged for the matter to be listed for a further hearing on 12 June 2026. The hearing was adjourned for the following reasons set out in my directions order of the same date:

[3] In advance of the hearing, the appellant raised concerns about his ability to pay for travel to get to the hearing centre and how the ongoing proceedings were having an adverse effect on his mental health. In my discretion, I permitted him to participate in the hearing remotely because he would not be required to give oral evidence and the matters would proceed solely on the basis of further arguments. On the day of the hearing, Ms Blackburn applied to rely on further evidence from the respondent clarifying the position she adopted in the country guidance proceedings. She made the late application on firm instructions that such an application should be made in all cases of this type but recognised that the change in position did not have any impact on the facts of this appeal because the appellant would be returned to Baghdad if his appeal failed, not the Iraqi Kurdish Region. I was not persuaded that it was in the interests of justice to admit this late-served evidence.

[4] Once the hearing commenced, it became clear that the appellant was struggling to hear those in the hearing room over the CVP link. As the matter was to be based solely on submissions, and after clarifying that he was in a private space and had no objections, I asked for the appellant to join the link by audio only. This resolved the audio problems but the appellant then expressed concern that the tribunal-appointed interpreter was not speaking an Iraqi dialect of Arabic. The appellant was able to make himself understood in English and I canvassed with him whether it might be better to ask the parties to provide further written submissions about the effect of the recent country guidance. Both parties agreed that this would be far more preferable than a further face-to-face or remote hearing and that I could reach a final decision after considering further written submissions from both sides having heard the appellant give oral evidence face-to-face at the hearing on 8 April 2026. I explained to Ms Blackburn that the respondent’s written submissions should be provided by 26 June 2026.

Directions:

i. By 5pm on 26 June 2026, the Secretary of State for the Home Department must provide to the tribunal and directly to the appellant, her written arguments about the effect of AH, AK & AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI) Iraq CG [2026] UKUT 00150 (IAC).
ii. By 5pm on 10 July 2026, the appellant must provide to the tribunal and directly to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, his written arguments about the effect of AH, AK & AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI) Iraq CG [2026] UKUT 00150 (IAC) on his case.

3. The respondent provided further written submissions, dated 19 June 2026. The appellant sent two emails to the tribunal, dated 22 June 2026 and 5 July 2026, in which he set out his case on the documentation issue and other matters.

Discussion

4. As explained above, the only issue to be resolved in these proceedings is whether the appellant would encounter conditions which would breach his Article 3 human rights if he were returned to Iraq. In his emails to the tribunal following my directions of 12 June 2026, the appellant reiterated his primary case that he was at risk on return due to the political opinions imputed to him on account of his father’s previous activities. These factual claims were roundly rejected for lawful reasons. Those findings of fact were preserved in the previous error of law decision and do not fall to be revisited here.

5. In relation to the documentation issue, the appellant has always maintained that he left Iraq with his CSID card but that this, along with his medication, was thrown overboard by others during his journey to the UK. However, this is not a case without any documentation. At the remaking hearing, the appellant referred to copies of both sides of the CSID card which he claimed was formerly in his possession. He also accepted that he had in his possession an Iraqi passport in his name which expired in October 2023. Moreover, he provided photographs of the Iraqi identification cards of two of his sisters which he claimed they sent to him before he lost contact with them in 2022.

6. While I recognise that the FtT rejected the credibility of the appellant’s account about his primary protection claim, I am satisfied that there is good reason to accept his account about the documentation he has available to him. If the respondent is right that the appellant fabricated the account of his CSID card being thrown overboard, it would very odd indeed for him to then volunteer a range of other evidence touching on the documentation issue. He has adduced a copy of his own CSID card, accepts that he has an expired Iraqi passport and has provided photographs of his sisters’ Iraqi identification cards. These are not the actions of a man seeking to cultivate a false narrative that he does not have access to necessary civil documentation. The real question is whether the range of documentation that the appellant has available to him is enough to allow him to travel from the point of return in Baghdad to his home area which is approximately 100 miles south of the capital city and is not in a disputed area, or the IKR.

7. Since the hearing of 12 June 2026, the country guidance position has shifted yet again. On 28 July 2026, the Court of Appeal approved and sealed a consent order setting aside the decision in AH, AK & AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI) Iraq CG. The effect of these proceedings is that SMO & KSP (Civil status documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 00110 (IAC) has retaken its place as binding country guidance in this field. The respondent relied on the parts of AH, AK & AJ which supported the proposition that the appellant could secure an INID card at the Iraqi Embassy in London but the guidance relied upon has now fallen away following the Court of Appeal order setting it aside.

8. At [7]-[10] of the headnote in SMO, it is clear that those who return to Baghdad with an expired Iraqi passport, such as that which the appellant accepts he has, will be permitted to enter Iraq and will not be at risk of serious harm at the point of return. The real issue is whether the appellant will be able to proceed from the airport to his home area to undergo the redocumentation process. Both parties were in broad agreement that the only available document was likely to be an INID card, rather than the largely phased out CSID card. The process to obtain an INID card involves the provision of biometric information which can only be done in person and cannot be achieved by proxy. The respondent argued in her recent submissions that there was nothing to indicate that there would be any checkpoints between Baghdad and the appellant’s home area. However, no country information was cited in support of this proposition. Given the prevalence of Shia-manned checkpoints throughout Iraq, as noted in SMO, I am not prepared to accept on this scant evidence that the appellant could travel 100 miles without encountering a checkpoint. However, it must also be noted that the appellant is himself Shia and may not encounter the kind of hostility or suspicion which might be reserved for those who follow other branches of Islam. Paragraphs [11]-[17] of SMO are instructive as to the practicalities of a returnee successfully navigating the redocumentation process. Paragraph [17] is clear that a valid passport, let alone an expired passport, will not be sufficient to facilitate internal travel. I am not persuaded that the possession of a copy of an expired CSID card, or indeed photographs of the appellant’s sisters’ Iraqi identification documents in the patrilineal Iraqi system, will enable him to proceed through checkpoints to his home area. The result is that the appellant will find himself permitted to enter Iraq at the point of return in Baghdad but will then be stranded without the ability to secure the necessary documentation. SMO is clear that living without the necessary documentation in Iraq brings about a real risk of Article 3 conditions.

Notice of Decision

9. On remaking the appeal decision, I allow the appellant’s appeal on Article 3 human rights grounds.

P Lodato

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 August 2026