Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-004131
(PA/57410/2024)

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 16th of October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’CALLAGHAN
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

KS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellants
AND

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms Gherman, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr Tan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Interpreter: Mr Caplan

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on the 5 October 2026

DECISION AND REASONS

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant and/or any member of his family 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 any member of his family. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.
BACKGROUND AND MATTERS IN ISSUE
1. The Appellant is an Iraqi national born on 28 September 2000 who originated from the Taq-Taq area in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. He entered the United Kingdom on 11 November 2021 and claimed asylum on 14 November 2021. He claimed that HA's family intended to kill him after discovering his relationship with her, that his own family left Iraq as a result, and that he could not obtain the documentation needed to return safely.
2. The Respondent refused the claim on 1 November 2023. The First-tier Tribunal (FtT) dismissed the appeal in a decision promulgated on 30 June 2025, following a hearing on 12 June 2025. It found (a) the Appellant was not in a relationship with HA; (b) HA's family had not threatened him; and (c) his family had not relocated because of any such threats. It also rejected his claim that he could not obtain identity documentation on return.
3. The Upper Tribunal granted permission on the limited ground that the FtT had arguably treated its adverse credibility findings as determinative of the separate issue of documentation; permission to challenge the credibility findings was refused. The Respondent accepted a material error on the documentation issue.
4. The matter came before the Upper Tribunal on 6 July 2026 and in a decision promulgated that day the Upper Tribunal set aside the FtT's decision insofar as it concerned documentation and redocumentation.
5. The Upper Tribunal preserved the following findings:
a. The Appellant did not have a relationship with HA
b. HA’s family have not made threats against the Appellant
c. HA’s family do not wish to cause the Appellant serious harm
6. The Upper Tribunal retained the appeal and later transferred it to us for remaking. All parties, before us, attended in person save for Ms Gherman, who appeared by video link by agreement.
7. The only issue before us was whether the Appellant could obtain the documentation required for return to Iraq, which requires us to determine:
a. Where the Appellant's family are, including whether they remain in Iraq;
b. The extent of his contact with them;
c. Where his identity documents are;
d. Whether his family can provide those documents to him; and
e. Whether he can obtain replacement documentation if necessary.
APPELLANT’S ORAL EVIDENCE FROM HEARING
8. The Appellant adopted his updated statement and gave oral evidence. He confirmed that he no longer had the photograph of his passport, claiming it was lost when he changed his mobile phone in May/June 2026, and that he had not backed up his old phone despite owning it for five years. He also accepted that, despite maintaining contact with his family, he had never asked them about his INID or other documents. He maintained that he had given his INID to a friend, who he believed had passed it to his family, though in his oral evidence he was unsure that this actually occurred. He accepted that he had not contacted this friend, sought help from relatives in Iraq, approached the Iraqi Embassy or otherwise enquired about a replacement INID.
SUBMISSIONS
9. Mr Tan relied on the preserved adverse findings, submitting that they undermined the Appellant's evidence about his documents. His claim that copies of all his documents were on a phone, since “lost”, lacked credibility. There was no evidence that he had replaced the phone or that the copies were not stored on a linked cloud account, despite him having used the same phone for five years. His evidence on the whereabouts of his documents was also inconsistent. In interview, he said they were at his parents' home, but in his statement, he said that he gave them to a friend and did not know whether they had been passed on to his parents. His evidence that the documents were not important to him lacked credibility. He has friends and family members who could assist him yet has not tried to establish what is required to redocument. He could be returned to Erbil, where the CPIN identifies no security issues, and travel within his governorate to his home area to obtain his documents. Mr Tan invited us to dismiss the appeal.
10. Ms Gherman relied on her skeleton argument and invited us to allow the appeal, submitting that the Appellant's account was credible. The Respondent accepted that the Appellant left Iraq illegally, and without his documents. He has consistently said, in his screening and substantive interviews and his statements, that his passport was taken by the police and that he had copies until he changed his phone. The record of him saying that his INID was left with his parents possibly reflected interpretation issues. His evidence was that he believed his friend sent it to his parents, but he could not be sure. There was no requirement to produce supporting evidence in a protection claim. He has always said he did not know exactly where his family were, only that they no longer lived in his hometown. The Appellant received calls from an Iranian number and had no contact with other family members. She submitted that he had no documents and, since redocumentation required possession of certain documents, he could not be redocumented in the UK.
LEGAL POSITION
11. The current country guidance case remains SMO & KSP (Civil status documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC) (SMO2). Under SMO2, an Iraqi national returned without a CSID or INID who cannot obtain one within a reasonable time is likely to face treatment contrary to Article 3, because of the difficulties of travelling internally and accessing services.
12. The Respondent's Country Bulletin (Iraq: Internal relocation, civil documentation and returns update following setting aside of Country Guidance, July 2026) sets out the current position in light of the fact AH, AK & AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI) Iraq CG [2026] UKUT 150 (IAC) has been set aside:
a. According to UNHCR information cited by the EUAA (October 2025), the CSID and the Iraqi Nationality Certificate (INC) ceased to be used as identity documents from 1 April 2024 and have been replaced by the INID. A valid INID or passport is required to pass checkpoints.
b. SMO2 held that an INID could only be obtained by attending in person at the local Civil Status Affairs office in Iraq. Since October 2024, however, applications can be made at the Iraqi Embassy in London. A mobile service is also available for those unable to attend.
c. The Embassy lists the following documents for an INID application:
i. an INC in the applicant's name, or that of a paternal relative (father, brother, paternal grandfather or uncle);
ii. a CSID;
iii. an Iraqi passport;
iv. proof of identity; and
v. proof of address.
d. It is unclear whether all of these are required. A translated Embassy video indicates that the passport is optional. Embassy posts state that applicants must produce their original CSID and INC when collecting the INID. The CSID and INC, although no longer valid for travel, therefore, remain important for obtaining an INID.
e. If documents are lost, the applicant must report the loss to the police, either in Iraq or in the UK, and provide evidence of the report together with an Arabic translation. Beyond that, the procedure for an applicant with no documents at all is unclear.
f. The Bulletin states that the onus is on the individual to show that he does not have, and cannot obtain, the necessary documents. Where documents were left in Iraq, the decision maker must consider whether they could be sent to the UK. The Embassy accepts telephone and email enquiries, so an individual unsure of his eligibility may be expected to make enquiries.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
13. Having heard the Appellant’s oral evidence and submissions from both parties, we reserved our decision.
14. Although the preserved findings do not determine where the Appellant's family were, the Tribunal had previously rejected the reason he gave for his departure from Iraq, which we are entitled to take into account when assessing his claim that they moved to Iran.
15. In his latest witness statement and oral evidence, the Appellant maintained that when he left Iraq his family remained at the family home in Taq-Taq. After his arrival in the United Kingdom, he was told that the family had left Taq-Taq and relocated elsewhere within the Kurdistan Region. He stated that his father would contact him every one or two months but never disclosed his family's precise location.
16. The Appellant also claimed that, approximately one month before the First-tier Tribunal hearing, in or around April or May 2025, his father contacted him using a telephone number with an Iranian country code. According to the Appellant, his father informed him that the family had been discovered and had left Iraq for Iran. He said he was given no further details of who had found them or how they left.
17. The Appellant's evidence was that since that time he has received occasional calls (every three to six months) from different Iranian telephone numbers. He was unable to contact his family directly and had to wait for them to contact him. Any conversations with them were brief because of the cost of the calls. Having changed his handset in May/June 2026 he cannot produce a complete record of calls, although he said he received a call from his father on 18 July 2026 and he produced a screenshot of that one-minute call which he asserted originated from an Iranian number.
18. He therefore claimed that as he did not know where his family were living and having no means of personally contacting them, he was unable to rely on them to obtain or send him his identity documents.
19. Mr Tan pointed out that, in his asylum interview the Appellant claimed his INID was located at his parents' home in Iraq. However, in his first witness statement he claimed he gave his INID documents to a friend who sent it to his parents. At the resumed hearing his evidence changed again and whilst he maintained he gave the document to a friend; he was uncertain what happened to it.
20. We remind ourselves the Appellant’s account of events in Iraq was previously rejected and, in such circumstances, we have concluded there would be no reason for his family to flee the country. Whilst we accept he left Iraq without his documents; we remain satisfied that he left them with his family.
21. Having considered the evidence, we were satisfied his parents remained in Iraq, they retain the document and could provide it to him. Alternatively, we find it reasonably likely that the Appellant’s family would have taken the Appellant’s INID to wherever they relocated to and could send it to him in the United Kingdom before return.
22. The Appellant claims not to have asked his parents about his INID despite being in contact with them. Given that he is fully aware of its importance, and that on his own account it was either left with his parents or sent to them by his friend, we find that claim wholly implausible.
23. The Appellant accepted in his oral evidence he has friends, uncles and grandparents in the Kurdistan region. He has not approached the Embassy, and we are satisfied that he has chosen not to take any steps to obtain either his original INID or a replacement.
24. His evidence about his phone also lacked credibility. He claimed that photographs of his passport and other documents were not restored from the cloud when he changed his iPhone in May/June 2026, but he provided no evidence of this. Whilst an Appellant need not necessarily provide supporting evidence, we find in light of TK (Burundi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 40 it is not unreasonable to expect evidence to be provided where it could reasonably be obtained.
25. We have also had regard to the country material summarised at [12] above, which shows that an INID can now be applied for through the Iraqi Embassy in London. The Appellant’s witness statement was silent on the following pertinent points:
a. Had he had contact with the Iraqi Embassy in this country?
b. Had he made any enquiry as to whether he could obtain a replacement INID?
c. Had he made any attempt to ascertain what information would be required?
d. Had he asked his family about his original or replacement documentation?
26. Instead, the statement focused exclusively on his claimed inability to obtain help from family members said to be in Iran who contact him only sporadically. On the evidence before us we find the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that he cannot obtain either his original INID or a replacement. The absence of a passport would not on its own be sufficient to prevent his removal as a laissez passer can of course be provided. As a Kurd he would be returned to the Kurdistan region and Mr Tan said any return would be to Erbil. Given out findings above and taking into account we find he does have family in the Kurdistan region we are satisfied he would be able to redocument himself within a reasonable period of time and article 3 ECHR would not be breached.
Notice of decision
27. The FtT’s decision involved an error of law in relation to documentation only. We remake the decision and dismiss the appeal.

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
15 October 2026