Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-004437
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/69631/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
12th August 2026

Before

DEPUTY CHAMBER PRESIDENT PLIMMER

Between

MBA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Shabbir, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Melville Street, Edinburgh, on 11 August 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
1. The appellant is a citizen of Iraq. He has appealed with permission, against a First-tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) decision dated 17 June 2025, dismissing his appeal on asylum and human rights grounds.
2. I have continued the anonymity order made by the FTT, as the requirements under the Refugee Convention in this particular case outweigh the demands of open justice. No party sought to argue otherwise.
Background
3. The appellant has a lengthy immigration history but it can be summarised for the purposes of this decision. The appellant entered the United Kingdom (‘UK’) as far back as 21 December 2016, and claimed asylum the next day. This was refused and his appeal against that decision was dismissed in a FTT decision dated 9 August 2017 (‘the 2017 FTT decision’). He made further submissions relying upon fresh evidence but this was also refused. His appeal against that decision was dismissed in a FTT decision dated 13 April 2023 (‘the 2023 FTT decision’). Further submissions were refused in a decision dated 17 August 2024 (‘the 2024 SSHD decision’).
4. The 2024 SSHD decision noted that the previous FTT decisions had rejected the appellant’s claim to be at risk in Iraq for reasons relating to his perceived sexuality or atheism. The SSHD explicitly addressed the claim that the appellant would be unable to return to his home area safely without the relevant identification documents and concluded at [76-77] that it was not accepted that he would be unable to access his documents.
5. In a statement dated 22 November 2024 the appellant provided detailed responses to the reasons provided in the 2024 SSHD decision. This statement contains no response to the SSSHD’s position on identification documentation save to mention at [24] that he was unable to provide evidence to support his claim that he had no contact with anyone in Iraq anymore.
6. Having heard evidence from the appellant and having noted the conclusions contained in the 2017 and 2023 FTT decisions, the FTT dismissed the appellant’s appeal.
Appeal to the Upper Tribunal
7. In a decision dated 4 March 2026, the appellant was granted permission to rely upon the two grounds of appeal raised in the renewal grounds to the Upper Tribunal (‘UT’). At the beginning of the hearing Mr Shabbir clarified that no reliance was being placed on ground 2 and his submissions would solely deal with ground 1. I therefore say no more about ground 2, and turn to the sole ground of appeal – ground 1.
8. Mr Shabbir accepted that ground 1 has been drafted in narrow terms. It alleges that given the lengthy time that the appellant had been in the UK, the FTT failed to take into account that his identity documentation may not have been valid. As the UT observed when granting permission to appeal, it was not made clear in the grounds of appeal whether and how this issue was put to the FTT, such that failing to address it was an error of law and the appellant should be in a position to address this.
9. As noted above, the appellant’s witness statement did not address the risk posed by the absence of identification documents. Similarly, the appellant’s skeleton argument prepared by his legal representatives for the FTT hearing, did not in any way refer to the appellant being at risk for reasons relating to an absence of identity documentation. Rather, it focused upon his claim to fear an honour killing as a person that would be perceived to be a homosexual. That aspect of his claim has been rejected and the grounds of appeal do not challenge it. Mr Shabbir accepted that the FTT received no assistance on the identification documentation point raised in ground 1 but submitted that as the FTT chose to address it, it was obliged to do so without legal error.
10. In accordance with the applicable country guidance of SMO & KSP (Civil status documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 00110 (IAC), the FTT considered whether the appellant would have the necessary documentation to return to his home area from Baghdad. The FTT posed the following question: is there sufficient evidence to depart from the previous FTT decisions to show that the appellant is at risk of persecution in Iraq due to a lack of documentation? For the reasons explained at [17-19], the FTT concluded that the appellant was not at risk in this way.
11. In reaching that conclusion, the FTT noted [36] of the 2017 FTT decision which contains the following: the appellant accepted that he had all required identification documents and passports; he had worked as a policeman; he had the assistance from his father in getting to the UK, and; he had a supportive wider family to whom he could obtain help to return to his home area. The FTT also made express reference to [27] of the 2023 FTT decision in which the appellant's claim that he was no longer in contact with his family was rejected and the FTT found that he could obtain the necessary documentation.
12. Mr Shabbir pointed out that the findings made by the three FTTs could have been clearer. He submitted that it was unclear which “relevant documentation” the appellant could access to facilitate a safe journey from Baghdad. When the FTT’s findings at [17-19] are read together with the explicit references to the previous FTTs’ findings, it is tolerably clear that the FTT found that: (i) the appellant held all required identity documentation; (ii) that must refer to the appellant’s CSID; this is because the appellant accepted before the 2017 FTT that he held all required identification documents and separately, passports – the INID was introduced at a much later stage and could only be obtained in person – it follows that “all required identification documents” must refer to the CSID; (iii) he had family willing to assist and support him.
13. It is important to consider the FTT’s findings in context. The SMO country guidance decision required the FTT to consider the issue of identity documentation, yet it was provided with no updated evidence from the appellant and no submissions from his legal representative. As the FTT observed at [17], it was given “no basis” to depart from the 2023 FTT decision. The 2023 FTT decision records that the identity documentation issue was raised at [8] and competing submissions were recorded at [10 and 14], and the issue was resolved at [26 and 27].
14. Returning to the allegation contained in ground 1. The first time the suggestion was made that the relevant identity documentation or CSID may no longer be valid is to be found in the ground of appeal to the UT against the most recent FTT decision. Given the clear findings in the 2017 and 2023 FTT decisions, as relied upon in the 2024 SSHD decision letter, it was incumbent upon the appellant to squarely raise which evidence was relied upon to support the suggestion that the previous FTT factual findings on the availability of identity documentation should be departed from. No such evidence was raised in the appellant’s witness statement or skeleton argument. There was therefore no evidence before the FTT on the issue and no submission that the CSID was no longer valid.
15. The appellant’s solicitors have sought to rely upon country background evidence post-dating the FTT decision in support of the proposition that the FTT erred in law when reaching its findings on the appellant’s access to identity documentation. Mr Shabbir accepted that he could not identify an error of law by reference to evidence post-dating the FTT decision, and I therefore need say no more about this.
16. The Court of Appeal have recently underlined the importance of procedural rigour in SSHD v Hirtie [2026] EWCA Civ 1000. Applying the principles in Singh v Dass [2019] EWCA Civ 360 [2019] 3 WLUK 105, an appellate court or tribunal should be cautious about admitting new points not raised below. Admitting the point on CSID validity would require new evidence about the documentation. Had that issue been raised below, the hearing would have been conducted differently as regards evidence from both sides. The issue was not a pure point of law capable of resolution without evidence. More fundamentally, as pointed out at [54] of Hirtie, permitting the point to be raised now would conflict with established procedural principles in Lata (FtT: Principal Controversial Issues) [2023] UKUT 163 (IAC), [2023] Imm AR 1416 and AL v SSHD [2026] EWCA Civ 370, and embedded in the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014. The FTT decision could not be said to contain an error of law for failing to address a point never raised as an issue in the appeal and not required to be determined pursuant to country guidance.
Conclusion
17. I therefore conclude that the FTT made factual findings on identification documentation open to it and the decision under appeal does not contain an error of law.
Decision
The decision of the FTT does not contain an error of law and is dismissed.

DCP Plimmer
Deputy Chamber President Plimmer

11 August 2026