Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002461

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/66518/2023
LP/12881/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 6th of November 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McWILLIAM

Between

NN
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr R Ahmed, Counsel instructed by Kings Law Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms N Kerr, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 21 October 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [he 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. The Appellant is a citizen of Iraq of Kurdish ethnicity. His date of birth is 6 July 1975.
2. The FTT made a direction to anonymise the Appellant. There no reason for this not to continue in the UT. He has been identified in the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) by three initials. It is the norm in the UT to identify appellants by two initials. I have accordingly referred to the Appellant as “NN” and not “NHN”as he was in the FTT.
3. On 8 August 2025 Upper Tribunal Judge Rastogi granted the Appellant permission to appeal against the decision of the FTT (Judge Young-Harry) to dismiss his appeal against the Respondent’s decision of 11 December 2023 to refuse his application for asylum.
4. The Appellant’s case is that he is the victim of a blood feud. In 2021 the Appellant’s brother discovered his wife having sex with a member of the Kokhi family who is of a different and powerful tribe called the Mazun. His brother killed both his wife and her lover. The Appellant fears that if he is returned he will be killed by a member of the Kokhi family or another member of the Mazun tribe. The Appellant fled Iraq in 2021 and came to the UK.
5. The judge found that the Appellant’s account about what happened in Iraq was credible. She found that there would be sufficiency of protection and that relocation would be viable.
Decision
6. The grounds are not particularised. They raise two issues; (1) the judge did not properly assess sufficiency of protection with reference to [18] of the decision; (2) the judge’s assessment of whether the Appellant has a CSID card is contrary to the guidance in SMO & KSP (Civil status documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC).
7. The Respondent did not rely in a Rule 24 response. I heard submissions from both representatives with which I engage below.
8. At [18] the judge considered the issue of the Kokhi family’s or the Mazun tribe’s power and reach. The judge said that the Appellant had provided photographs of men in combat uniforms and that his evidence was that the photographs include the family of the man killed. The judge said:-
“Unfortunately, the photos do not assist to any great extent as they could be photographs of anyone, there is nothing to identify the men. Other than the photographs, I have not been provided with details about the family in question, their reach, influence, power, their standing or position as a tribe”.
9. Mr Ahmed contended that the Appellant was not given the opportunity to engage with the finding of the judge at [18] and to comment on the lack of evidence. The judge did not consider the evidence in the context of the Appellant’s limited education. The grounds say that it was not reasonable to assume that the Appellant would have known that further evidence was needed on this issue.
10. There is no error of law. The Appellant has been represented throughout the proceedings. He may not have been able to prepare his case to a professional standard. He instructed solicitors to assist him to do this on his behalf. It is reasonable to assume that they would have known what evidence was necessary to support that the family/tribe had power and influence. Indeed they must have been aware of the significance of this which would explain the Appellant’s reliance on the photographs. Whilst the photographs may show people wearing Peshmerga uniforms with emblems which could support that the men are high ranking members of the KDP, there was, as stated by the judge nothing to identify them as those whom the Appellant fears. Fairness does not demand that the judge should have raised the issue of evidence or lack of with the represented Appellant. The judge was entitled to conclude that the evidence was insufficient. The Appellant’s evidence in his witness statement at [10] is a bare assertion that the family is powerful and can find him anywhere.
11. The judge found at [17] that the Appellant’s account was “ generally consistent and reliable”. There is no conflict between this and the finding at [18]. The judge did not make an adverse credibility finding at [18]. The finding was based on insufficient evidence.
12. At [19] the judge concluded that the Appellant had failed to show he could not take advantage of or seek effective protection through the tribal system. It was not an issue raised by the Respondent at any time in the proceedings. However, the finding in respect of tribal protection is not determinative of the outcome of the appeal. The judge at [18] said that she did not accept that the evidence established that the perpetrators would have the necessary influence, power, standing or position as a tribe so that relocation would not be viable. Whether or not there would be protection through the tribal system was not material to the decision when considering relocation because the judge had found that the family/tribe does not have reach throughout Iraq.
13. Mr Ahmed said that the finding in respect of relocation is flawed. The Appellant does not have a CSID card. It is argued that without this he cannot relocate. I do not accept that the judge erred. It is accepted that the Appellant has a laissez passer. The judge said that he had remained in contact with his family and they could assist him to obtain and arrange his documentation on return. The grounds do not disclose an error in regards to the finding that the Appellant is in contact with his family. They are a disagreement. They simply state that the Appellant has confirmed that he does not have contact with his family. This is contrary to the Appellant’s own witness statement of 11 March 2024 (see [6] and [8]). The Appellant is a former resident of the IKR. The Respondent’s position is that he can relocate anywhere within Iraq and it is proposed to remove him to Sulaymaniyah or Erbil with his laissez passer.
14. Following SMO the Appellant will not be at risk on account of the lack of documents. Replacement CSIDs remain available through Iraq for those nationals who are registered at a Civil Status Affairs office (CSA) which has not transferred to a digital INID system (otherwise the Appellant would have to personally attend the CSA which could potentially put him at risk). The Appellant has not provided the Respondent with details of the specific CSA office at which he is registered so that enquiries can be made concerning whether there has been a transition to the INID. Paragraph [14] of the headnote in SMO explains how a replacement can be obtained while an appellant is in the UK through family in Iraq. There was nothing in the Appellant’s evidence that addressed this. The judge was entitled to conclude that the Appellant could obtain a replacement document through his family in Iraq. In any event, Mr Ahmed accepted in submissions that he could not say that the findings are at odds with the guidance in SMO.
15. There is no error of law in the decision of the FTT.

Notice of Decision
16. The Appellant’s appeal is dismissed on asylum grounds.

Joanna McWilliam

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

28 October 2025