Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005140
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/00184/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

21st October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAHMOOD

Between

SMQ
(ANONYMITY ORDER CONTINUED)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Reid of Counsel instructed by MA Consultants
For the Respondent: Ms Newton, a Senior Home Officer Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House 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. The parties may apply on notice to vary this order.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is my ex tempore decision which I delivered at the hearing today.
Introduction
2. This is my decision in respect of the remaking of the Appellant’s appeal following an earlier hearing before me, where an error of law had been conceded by the Secretary of State. This matter then being adjourned for further evidence to be filed and served to enable this resumed hearing to take place before me.
Appellant’s Solicitor’s Non-Compliance with Previous Orders
3. I refer to my earlier order because it is necessary to deal with some of the preliminary matters which arise in this case. Regrettably, it was necessary for me to say at that earlier hearing that there were problems with the way in which MA Consultants had provided a bundle for the previous hearing. The bundle had not been presented in the correct form, and I was given an assurance by Mr Ahmed of Counsel, who then appeared on behalf of the Appellant, that he would pass the message back to MA Consultants that similar issues must not arise in the future. Based on that assurance, I was not minded to take any further action against MA Consultants.
4. Regrettably, there have been some very serious issues with the lack of compliance yet again by MA Consultants. At the hearing before me today, the Appellant’s representatives have failed to provide a skeleton argument. Instead, what they have done, which is shocking, is merely to provide a skeleton argument which was used for and was only relevant only to the First-tier Tribunal. As Mr Reid very fairly said the heading of the case on the skeleton argument is to the First-tier Tribunal and it refers to the First-tier Tribunal case number. Regrettably, the Appellant’s representatives failed to file or serve a skeleton argument for this hearing. Despite clear orders of the Upper Tribunal that they had to do so.
5. Even worse, the bundle of documents which they have filed for this hearing is not electronically navigable and does not include all of the necessary documents. If things were not bad enough, additionally, the Appellant’s representatives, just 2 working days ago on 7 August, provided the shortest of witness statements from the Appellant. To add to all of this, the solicitors or the representatives, because I do not think they are solicitors, had lost complete focus what this appeal was about. They failed to grasp the remit and the limitations of the remaking hearing. The only issue which was to be considered by me was in respect of re-documentation on return to Iraq.
6. Mr Reid, who on reflection has said everything and done everything on behalf of the Appellant that could possibly be said and be done, agreed that the only issue before me was the re-documentation issue.
7. It is against that background that, regrettably, I have to consider this case even though it is never pleasant to have to, as it were, name and shame the legal representatives when they fail in such a serious fashion. But I do so in this published judgment so that nothing like this ever occurs again. These protection cases raise the most serious of issues because if I make the wrong decision, the consequences for the Appellant would be extremely severe. It is no exaggeration to say that these are life or death cases. It is all the more surprising that the Appellant’s representatives have not complied with the directions and have not even had the courtesy to respond to Mr Reid, who enquired of them this morning as to why they had not complied with my earlier written directions.
8. I therefore order that MA Consultants shall provide, by no later than 4.00 pm on 25 August 2026, a witness statement with a statement of truth from the senior partner or owner explaining why they failed to comply with my directions and whether this is a matter that will ever occur again and why the Hamid jurisdiction should not apply.
9. In any event, I say all of those things because of the difficulties caused in respect of the consideration of the documents and the lack of a proper bundle and a lack of a proper focus from the Appellant’s solicitors in terms of what his case is actually about.
10. I turn then to other documents. The Respondent, being the Secretary of State, has provided a Position Statement within which it is said that because the Appellant had not complied with directions in respect of the bundle and the skeleton argument, then the Respondent’s document was thereby late. Ms Newton apologised for the lateness. I do note that the Position Statement is dated 8 July 2026 and it is not entirely certain if that is the correct date or not. But in any event, I have seen it and I have also seen the bulletin attached to it and which I shall return to when considering the merits of the case.
The Issues and the Burden and Standard of Proof
11. I remind myself that the protection claim which arises in this matter is one which is pre-NABA and that therefore the lower standard of proof applies. Of course, it is for the Appellant to prove his case. The issue before me is the risk on return to Iraq relating to re-documentation. The parties agreed that the issue was a discrete one.
The Hearing Before Me
12. The Appellant provide oral evidence before me. He adopted his new witness statement dated 7 August 2026 as part of his evidence. It is a short witness statement. It does not deal with the re-documentation issue. He also adopted a previous witness statement which was contained within page 61 of the Home Office bundle as part of his evidence. There was no further examination in chief.
13. In cross examination, the Appellant was asked about his family in Iraq. The Appellant said he had no other family in Iraq, that he was the ‘unique one’ in his family and both his parents had passed away. As for extended family, he said he had extended family but that he had no connections to them. He explained that ‘no connection’ meant that he had not had recent contact with them and that they were not interested in him. He said when he was in Iraq he had lived with his parents. He was asked when the last time was that he had any contact with anyone in Iraq. He said that was about 2 months ago. The contact was with his neighbour in Iraq. He said he knew that his house had been taken over because his neighbour had told him.
14. The Appellant said that he did not have a CSID card but that he had a copy of his Iraqi passport. He said he had been issued with a CSID card in the past. He was asked where it was and he said he had left it in his country and he had left lots of other things behind. He said his mother had passed away in 2013. He was asked whether he had ever tried to get a new passport. The Appellant said, “I could not go to the Iraqi Embassy to renew.” He was asked why he had not bothered to go to the Iraqi Embassy to renew his passport, and he said that his father was a guard working in the army and that he had connections to the Ba’ath Party. The Appellant was pressed as to why this would prevent him from obtaining a passport. The Appellant said that he was wanted by the Iraqi government. The Appellant was asked whether he had ever applied online for a new identity card. The Appellant said he had not. The Appellant was asked why he had not applied online for an identity card and the Appellant said it was because his father had been responsible within the Ba’ath government. The Appellant said he is wanted in Iraq and that he knows he will not be granted an ID card.
15. It was put to the Appellant that the First-tier Tribunal said that he was no risk on return to Iraq, so why was it that he, the Appellant, had not applied for his documents? The Appellant said that there was documentation from the Ministry of Iraq and that he is wanted and that these documents were within the bundle, for example something issued by the Prime Ministry.
16. In re-examination, the Appellant said that he had left Iraq at the end of 2014 and he did not have a CSID card now. He had left Iraq just under 12 years ago. The Appellant was asked that even though the First-tier Tribunal said that his fears of return to Iraq were not well founded, what he had to say about it. The Appellant said that the Prime Ministry’s department was pursuing him and that he feared the Iraqi government. He said he had not applied for any ID documents because he did not know whether there was some difficulty or some delay in them being issued.
17. After the evidence concluded, I heard submissions from each of the parties.
18. Ms Newton took me to the Respondent’s written Position Statement. She referred to the country guidance of SMO and KSP (Civil status documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 00110 and the changes since then. She said there was an ability to obtain an INID card within the UK. She referred to CSID. She took me to the bulletin for July 2026. She referred to the position in respect of the disputed territories and said the Appellant was from Mosul. I was taken to paragraph 5.1 of the bulletin. Ms Newton said the Appellant has his expired passport and that the Appellant failed to apply for the relevant documents to re-document himself here in the UK. Ms Newton said that whilst the Appellant said that he has a fear of the government, the Appellant then also said it would take too long for him to renew his documents. Ms Newton said that the copy of the passport will show his identity and that indeed his fingerprints would also show his identity. Ms Newton said the Appellant had made no effort to re-document himself. Ms Newton took me to other parts of the bulletin including paragraphs 4.1 and 2.2.2.
19. Ms Newton said the Appellant had not applied for the documentation, so the Appellant does not know that he will not actually be granted these documents. Ms Newton submitted that the Appellant has not done everything; he was not able to show he had done everything to get the document, and he failed to do so. Ms Newton said that the Appellant has contact with a friend in Iraq and he would be able to verify by way of affidavit with a copy of the passport as well.
20. Mr Reid in his submissions on behalf of the Appellant said that the Respondent’s Country Bulletin was seeking to elevate itself to a status which was not permitted. He took me to what the subheading and he said this was guidance for decision makers and to assist them in making the decisions. He said it was an inadmissible document, and it was unreasonable to have expected the Appellant to follow the evidence.
21. Mr Reid said the Tribunal today was being asked to take the bulletin as evidence, but this was not evidence, this was Home Office policy. He said it was unfair in the circumstances. Asked how this, if he was correct, could be dealt with, Mr Reid said that the Appellant should be invited to do what the Home Office had said he should do and that this was simply a matter of fairness. He said that he was objecting to these documents. When I pressed Mr Reid that this was a matter raised at the start of the hearing, Mr Reid said that these were matters which were being raised against the Appellant in “terms of claims and accusations”.
22. Mr Reid said he would then move on. He then dealt with the topic of credibility. He said that there were no findings in relation to credibility against the Appellant and the Respondent’s Reason for Refusal document did not raise credibility. He said the Reason for Refusal was wrong to refer to credibility because one could see that there were accepted facts.
23. He said the only material fact that was not accepted in the Reason for Refusal letter was that it was said that the Appellant was of no interest to the Iraqi government. Mr Reid said that must be because of the change of government in Iraq. Mr Reid took me to page 61 of the Respondent’s bundle. He also referred to the Respondent’s position statement.
24. He said the way in which the position statement was couched was that if the Appellant can get his INID, then that might be a complete answer to whether the Appellant faces any risk. Mr Reid said the opposite applies equally because it might not be that he is able to get his INID. Overall, Mr Reid submitted that I ought to allow the appeal in respect of the appellants case and evidence.
Consideration and Analysis
25. It is necessary to refer to some of the earlier documents in this case. I start with the decision of the previous Judge who dealt with certain aspects in respect of the Appellant’s case which remain as findings, and it were, unchallenged. Those matters cannot be challenged before me because those aspects were not the subject of this limited issue remaking hearing.
26. Within that decision, the FTT judge dealt with the claim in respect of the Appellant’s case and it certainly is made clear both within the judge’s decision but also within the Respondent’s Reasons for Refusal decision that the Appellant’s claim to be at risk from the authorities and all those aligned to them was not accepted. It was clearly explained and found against the Appellant that there was no real risk of that arising.
27. It was for that reason I had at the previous hearing wanted to ensure that there would be no issue about the scope of today’s remaking hearing. I had adjourned the matter during that previous hearing to enable Counsel to take instructions from his lay client but also to enable the Appellant’s Counsel to discuss matters with Mr Tan, who then appeared on behalf of the Respondent. The very clear submissions to me were that the only issue was the re-documentation issue. I had therefore double checked that at the start of the hearing before me today.
28. Therefore, where the Appellant now apparently seeks to rely on his old skeleton argument (which is from the First-tier Tribunal) in relation to risk on return or where he refers to refugee sur place matters in his witness statement of 7 August 2026, none of those matters are before me. In any event, I think there is simply no basis for them.
29. The issue is re-documentation and that is dealt with in the clearest way by the Respondent in her Position Statement drafted by Mr Andrew Mullen dated 8 July 2026, and I refer to certain parts of that.
30. Firstly, that Position Statement refers to my directions and it states that my directions were:
1) The matter should be listed for a resumed hearing with a time estimate of 3 hours.
2) 28 before the hearing, the Appellant shall file on the CE file and separately serve the Respondent an electronically navigable bundle with all updating evidence and all documents to be relied on and an appropriate application pursuant to rule 15(2A).
3) 14 days before the resumed hearing, the Appellant shall file on the CE file and separately serve the Respondent a skeleton argument.
31. So, I pause there. Firstly, there was no bundle in time from the Appellant. Secondly, there has been no rule 15(2A) application by the Appellant. Thirdly, there was no skeleton argument served 14 days before the hearing from the Appellant. In fact, there has not been one at all. All that has happened, shockingly, is an old skeleton argument has been filed by the Appellant’s legal representatives.
32. Nonetheless, I still take into account the bundle which has been provided and I take into account the Appellant’s witness statement of 7 August 2026 because it is in the interests of justice to do so.
33. The Respondent says that I can depart from the country guidance in SMO and KSP (Civil status documentation; Article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 00110 (IAC), SMO2, because the following changes have taken place: “Progress of the Iraqi National Identity Card, INID, roll-out; ability to obtain an INID in the UK; validity of the Civil Status Identity Document, CSID.”
34. It states a new bulletin also sets out additional information regarding the return of persons from the disputed territories which was not available to the Upper Tribunal when it handed down its decision in SMO2.
35. The Respondent says in her Position Statement:
“The Respondent will argue that the Appellant has access to a copy of the expired Iraqi passport, page 16 of the Home Office bundle. The Iraqi authorities ought to be able to confirm A’s identity as they already have a record of the Appellant’s fingerprint information which was taken as part of the passport issuing process. The Appellant’s bio-data contained in the copy pages from his passport might be sufficient to trace any previously issued identity documents. The Appellant would therefore be in a better position than an Appellant who has lost all his documents in terms of gathering the necessary information to obtain an INID at the Iraqi Embassy. Section 2.2 of the enclosed bulletin refers.
"The Appellant has not submitted any evidence showing why he would not be able to apply to the Iraqi Embassy for the issue of an INID. The fact that there is now the possibility to apply for an INID in the UK, the burden of proof is on the Appellant to demonstrate why he could not obtain an INID.
"If the Tribunal finds it impossible to obtain an INID from the Embassy in London, that might be a complete answer to the claim that the Appellant faces any risk for onward travel to his home area following his return to Iraq.
"The Respondent will submit that since SMO2 was promulgated, the UK Government signed a declaration of intent with the Government of Iraq covering the returns of Iraqi nationals.
"Whilst the decision on the Appellant’s asylum claim referred to Baghdad as a point of removal, current information in the bulletin suggests it may be possible to return this Appellant to Erbil.
"Paragraph 5.1.4 of the bulletin explains, in respect of the enforced returns since the signing of the DOI, all individuals from the disputed territories have been returned to Baghdad, save for one individual born in Kirkuk, who was an enforced return to Erbil. There have been a number of voluntary returns of those from the disputed territories returning to Erbil and Sulaymaniyah.
"The bulletin confirms that individuals from the disputed territories may be returned via Erbil or Sulaymaniyah in the KRI, as well as via Baghdad International Airport if required. See section 5 of the bulletin for information on returns.
"The Respondent submits that the Appellant has not established that he would be unable to obtain an INID from the Iraqi Embassy. The Appellant might also be able to be returned to Erbil and travel from there to Mosul without facing any difficulty at checkpoints in between. The appeal should be dismissed.”
36. The bulletin which I have been referring to is entitled Country Bulletin: Iraq – Internal Relocation, Civil Documentation and Returns (Update Following Setting Aside of Country Guidance) and is dated July 2026. This is a document in the public domain. I do not accept the submissions by Mr Reid, with the greatest respect, which are misconceived. This is not evidence that I should decline to take into account because the nature of hearings in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber is such that country reports, including bulletins and the like, are matters which are almost always taken into account. Those who practise in this area have to be aware of them. They should not attend hearings without being aware of them.
37. In any event, if there was a request for an adjournment, which there was not, I doubt that this Appellant would be able to get around a fundamental difficulty in his case. The fundamental difficulty in his case relates to the Appellant saying that the reason he has not sought to apply to the Embassy is because he is wanted or sought after by the Iraqi authorities. The problem for the Appellant is that his case on that claim has been comprehensively rejected by the FTT judge who heard the appeal originally. That is not a matter that was the subject of an appeal before me. The appeal before me was limited to re-documentation issues only.
38. In my judgment, the country bulletin makes it plain that the Appellant can indeed make an application to the Iraqi Embassy in London and that the fact that this Appellant has a copy of his Iraqi passport will enable him to be extremely well placed to be able to seek the Iraqi Embassy’s assistance.
39. The bulletin says at 2.2.1, “Proof of identity”. Although this is one of the many documents that might be sought, in this case the Appellant has the extra advantage of having his picture in his passport and a record of his fingerprints. A fingerprint is also evidence of his identity.
40. The Appellant has been in touch with his neighbour in Iraq as recently as 2 months ago and, although I do not make a finding that the Appellant is able to go as far as finding any documents which he may have left in Iraq, it is clear to me that the Appellant has the resources and the ability to contact people far and wide. It cannot have been easy for him to have made contact with his neighbour in Iraq.
41. Ms Newton referred me to the annex attached to the bulletin, which is an Iraqi Embassy Facebook post from 16 October 2024, which sets out, with a translation, the process for the Appellant and others as to how it is they can make their applications.
42. It really comes to this. The Appellant says, “I haven’t bothered to make any application because I’m scared. I’m scared of the Iraqi authorities.” However, a FTT judge exercising competent jurisdiction after a hearing concluded that that fear was not made out on an objective basis. Those are the facts and preserved findings before me. In my judgment, it was incumbent upon this Appellant to have made his application to the Iraqi Embassy. It is not the other way around. The burden is on the Appellant and not on the Secretary of State.
43. In my judgment, to the lower standard, the Appellant’s claim therefore fails.
44. If, and it is a very big if, at a later stage the Appellant has not been successful for whatever proper reason in his application for an identity card or similar, or even a new passport, then he may be able to make further representations to the Secretary of State. But that is a matter for him. It is not me giving advice. It is me merely observing the format and the way in which things sometimes might operate. Nor am I suggesting that such further representation will meet the fresh claims or other tests.
45. Once the Appellant has the necessary documentation, it is clear from the summary of the bulletin and indeed from the bulletin itself that the Appellant has a valid return route through Iraq to enable him to be in his home of Mosul, alternatively to Baghdad or indeed anywhere else he might consider because he would have the relevant documents.
46. In the circumstances, despite Mr Reid saying and doing all he possibly can on behalf of the Appellant, I dismiss the Appellant’s appeal on all grounds.
47. For completeness, no Article 8 or human rights or further humanitarian protection submissions were advanced before me, but in any event, I dismiss any such aspect of the appeal as well.
48. That is my judgment.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contained a material error of law.
I remake the decision. I dismiss the appeal on all grounds.
The anonymity direction is continued.

Judge Mahmood

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

11 August 2026