Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-005201
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/66619/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 28th of April 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’CALLAGHAN

Between

FO
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Johnrose, Solicitor, Broudie Jackson Canter Solicitors
For the Respondent: Dr Ibisi, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester on 21 April 2026

ANONYMITY ORDER

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 appeals a decision of the First-tier Tribunal refusing his international protection and human rights appeals. The decision was sent to the parties on 24 September 2025.
Anonymity Order
2. The First-tier Tribunal issued an anonymity order. I consider that at the present time the appellant’s private life rights protected by article 8 ECHR outweigh the public interest in knowing his identity in these proceedings, as protected by article 10 ECHR, consequent to him seeking international protection. In these circumstances, I conclude that the anonymity order should properly continue.
3. The order is detailed above.
Relevant Facts
4. The appellant is a national of Iraq and is presently aged 25. He hails from Erbil, a city situated in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. He claimed asylum on 1 July 2021. He states that he fears persecution consequent to having fallen in love with a woman (‘S’) and asked her family for permission to marry her. The request was refused. He details that he was assaulted and threatened by S’s father and brothers. He fears that he will be killed on return to Iraq. The respondent refused the application for international protection by a decision dated 6 December 2023.
First-tier Tribunal Decision
5. The hearing was held in Manchester on 20 August 2025. The appellant attended and gave evidence.
6. The First-tier Tribunal found the appellant to have provided contradictory and inconsistent evidence. Such failing related both to when he first met S and how they parted when she returned to her family, with evidence on these events changing on several occasions. The First-tier Tribunal rejected the appellant’s assertion as to memory difficulties and concluded that the appellant was not credible as to his personal history in respect of events concerning S and her family.
7. In respect of redocumentation and return, the First-tier Tribunal found that the appellant was not credible as to his having no contact with his family. Consequently, it concluded:
“29. ... he will be able to contact his family and that as a result of the steps set out in the CPIN ... he will be allowed to leave the airport in Erbil and attend his local CSA office to redocument. He will do so I find with the assistance of his family and if necessary witnesses as envisaged above. I do not accept the submission that it is a reasonable likelihood that even with the help of his family he will be unable to re-document. I find to the lower standard that his return is feasible even accepting his lack of documentation and that this is in line with the authorities.”
8. The First-tier Tribunal further found that there was nothing in the evidence presented establishing to the required standard that the appellant’s activities in the United Kingdom were of such nature and profile as to place him at real risk on his return. It was noted that such activities were not mentioned in his witness statement, leading to the First-tier Tribunal concluding that they were “opportunistic”.
Grounds of Appeal
9. The focus of the appellant’s challenge before this Tribunal is solely directed to the First-tier Tribunal’s assessment of redocumentation and return consequent to its finding that his CSID and passport were taken from him by a people smuggler.
10. By a decision dated 13 January 2026, Upper Tribunal Judge Blum granted permission to appeal. He reasoned:
“The appellant, a national of Iraq who hails from Ebril in the KRI, was disbelieved in respect of the core of his protection claim, but it was accepted his CSID card and passport were taken from him by a people smuggler and that the appellant is undocumented. The grounds contend, in reliance on 6.7.2 of the October 2023 CPIN, that the appellant requires a CSID card, Nationality Certificate and Residency card to be provided when applying for an INID. The CPIN does not in terms state that an INID would not be issued without these documents, but it is unclear what would happen if the appellant did not have these documents, even if he was supported by immediate family members. It is therefore arguable that the judge may have erred in law by failing to engage with this argument.”
11. The respondent filed a rule 24 response, dated 3 December 2025.
Discussion
12. The Upper Tribunal promulgated its country guidance decision in AH, AK and AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI) Iraq CG [2026] UKUT 00150 (IAC) a week before the error of law hearing in this matter.
13. Ms Johnson conceded on behalf of the appellant that though his position remained that the First-tier Tribunal erred as contended in the grounds, the issue of materiality was impacted by the recent Country Guidance decision. She noted paragraphs 323-330 of AH, AK and AJ, and accepted that on the facts as found by the First-tier Tribunal in this matter the appellant would fall to be considered under these paragraphs at a rehearing. I observe the following reasoning from the recent Country Guidance decision, and note the finding of fact in this matter that the appellant can contact his family in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq:
“323. Returning to the documentary requirements for AK to make an INID application, we find that he would be able to (i) establish his identity without a CSID (or existing INID) by reference to the family register page of the Family Book which his father would have had access to for his own INID application, and/or be able to obtain a Surat Qaid with these details on from his local CSA office (which would include AK as a member of his father’ family), and/or be identifiable from the family reference on AK’s father’s own INID; and (ii) use his father’s INC card in the absence of AK’s own INC.
324. The burden is on AK to establish that he is unable to obtain an INID and there is no evidence before us that he has made any attempt to do so through the Iraqi Embassy in London (who have the facilities in place to take the required bio-data and process an application and with information and documentation that can be obtained from or through his father), nor anything to support an assertion that such an application would be refused if he did so.
325. In all of the circumstances, we find that AK has not established that he is unable to obtain an INID from the Iraqi Embassy in London. As such, he would be returning to Iraq as a documented person with an INID. There would be no reason as to why a laissez-passer could not be obtained for his travel and with his INID he would be able to pass through the airport and any checkpoints thereafter to return to his home area of Rowaleh (where it has already been found he is not at risk on return) or to relocate within the KRI.”
14. I consider Ms Johnrose’s concession to be properly made. In the circumstances, the only proper course for this Tribunal is to dismiss the appellant’s appeal.

Notice of Decision
15. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 24 September 2025 did not involve the making of a material error on a point of law.
16. The appeal is dismissed.

D O’Callaghan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

24 April 2026