Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case Nos: UI-2025-005298
First-tier Tribunal Nos:
PA/57524/2023
LP/13279/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

7th July 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA
and
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHANA

Between

R.U.M
(Anonymity granted)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation

For the appellant: Ms K Toby of Counsel
For the respondent: Mr E Tufan, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 22 June 2026

Anonymity order — The First-tier Tribunal made an anonymity order pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. No application has been made to set that order aside. Although we recognise the strong public interest in open justice, we are satisfied that, in the circumstances of this appeal, it remains appropriate to continue the anonymity order in respect of the appellant.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (‘the Upper Tribunal’). The Upper Tribunal is an independent decision-making body with powers given by an Act of Parliament. This decision is made in the context of the Upper Tribunal’s role in considering statutory appeals from decisions made by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (‘the First-tier Tribunal’).
2. The appellant, a citizen of Iraq, appeals with permission against First-tier Tribunal Judge Wilding’s decision, promulgated on 9 October 2025, dismissing his appeal against the respondent’s refusal of his asylum claim dated 15 September 2023.
3. The First-tier Tribunal heard the appeal on 17 February 2025. The judge rejected the appellant’s account, found him not credible, and concluded that he could be safely returned to Iraq.
4. On 18 November 2025, Upper Tribunal Judge McQuillon granted permission on one ground: whether the judge gave adequate consideration to the appellant’s documentation for return to Iraq and the former relevant country guidance in SMO, KSP and IM [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC). The judge found this disclosed an arguable error of law.
5. 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) which we take into account in determining the appellant’s appeal.
6. The Upper Tribunal was satisfied that the judge made a material error of law by failing to address the appellant’s documentation and the relevant country guidance in SMO, KSP and IM. The decision was therefore set aside to that extent. Both parties agreed that the resumed hearing in the Upper Tribunal should be limited to that issue. All other findings of the First-tier Tribunal were preserved.
7. The only issue for before us is whether the appellant can be safely returned to Iraq. That requires us to consider whether he has, or can obtain, the documentation required by the Iraqi authorities for his return, and whether removal would breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
8. At the resumed Upper Tribunal hearing, the appellant gave oral evidence and adopted his witness statement dated 8 June 2026. He was cross-examined by Mr Tufan and answered questions from the Tribunal. When asked whether he remembered his family book number, the appellant said that he did not, because more than five years had passed. However, he recalled that his identity card had “a long number”. We find that this evidence indicates that the appellant previously held an identity card in Iraq and would therefore have been registered in the family book.
9. Having found that the appellant previously held an identity card, although he says he no longer has it, the issue is whether he can contact family members in Iraq to obtain either his family book number or a photocopy of a relative’s identity card. The appellant says that he cannot approach his family because doing so might put them at risk if the PKK became aware of the contact.
10. The appellant’s evidence contained a number of inconsistencies which undermine the credibility of his claim that he cannot contact his family in Iraq.
11. The appellant gave inconsistent evidence about who took possession of his identity documents. At the hearing, he said that the smuggler hired by his father to bring him to the United Kingdom took all of his documents, including his identity card. However, in his asylum interview, at question 32, he said that the PKK took all of his identity documents when they arrested him.
12. At the hearing, the appellant sought to explain this inconsistency by saying that photocopies of identity cards had to be produced at checkpoints and that he had given a photocopy of his identity card to the PKK. We do not accept that explanation. Given the adverse credibility findings already made in relation to his claimed fear of the PKK, we find that this was an attempt to explain away an inconsistency in his evidence.
13. The appellant was also inconsistent about whether he had been in contact with family members in Iraq since leaving the country. At his asylum interview on 6 September 2023, he said that he had spoken to his family “yesterday”, which would have been 5 September 2023. At the resumed hearing, however, he said that he had not had any contact with his family in Iraq since leaving.
14. When asked about this, the appellant did not answer the question directly. Instead, he referred to Kurdish shops in Croydon, where he said he had approached Kurdish people to ask whether anyone knew his father in Iraq. He nevertheless maintained that he had not contacted his family since leaving Iraq. We found that the appellant’s evidence on this point lacked all credibility.
15. The appellant accepts that his father and eight brothers remain in Iraq, including one brother who is a police officer. His only stated reason for not contacting them is concern for their safety. He says that, if the PKK became aware that he had contacted his family, they might be placed at risk. The underlying facts of the asylum claim were rejected by the FTT and no challenge remains on those findings. The appellant has not established that he is at risk in Iraq, and his asylum claim has been dismissed. We therefore find that his family would not be placed at risk by contact from him, and that he can contact them to obtain his family book number and/or a copy of a relative’s identity card.
16. At the hearing, the appellant sought to bolster his asylum claim by referring, without being asked to his sur place activities in the United Kingdom. The appellant has never previously alluded to any political activity in the United Kingdom. He said that he had been attending demonstrations in the United Kingdom. Throughout the hearing, the appellant did not answer the questions put to him directly and instead continued to advance his asylum claim. We find that this conduct further undermines the credibility of his evidence.
17. Mr Tufan submitted that the appellant would be returned to Erbil, which is within the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. He argued that, as Sulaymaniyah is no longer identified in the country guidance as the point of return, return to Erbil is feasible. He further submitted that, after arrival at Erbil airport, the appellant could travel within the Kurdistan Region, including to his home area, which Mr Tufan said is closer to Erbil airport than to Sulaymaniyah airport.
18. Mr Tufan submitted that the appellant could be documented in several ways. First, he could apply to the Iraqi Embassy in the United Kingdom, which issues identity documents to those who can provide the necessary personal details. Secondly, he could obtain a letter at Erbil airport enabling him to travel to his home area. Thirdly, he could receive assistance from family members in Iraq, who could meet him at the airport. Mr Tufan emphasised that the appellant has nine family members in Iraq and that no adequate reason had been given why at least one of them could not meet him on return. He submitted that, as the appellant’s father had previously paid a smuggler to bring him to the United Kingdom, it was reasonable to infer that his father would arrange for himself or one of his sons to meet the appellant at the airport.
19. Ms Tobin submitted that the appellant cannot obtain documentation in the United Kingdom because he cannot contact his family in Iraq. She argued that the respondent’s suggestion that he could contact his father at his workplace, said to be a hospital, was speculative. She further submitted that the appellant could not safely travel to a CSID office because he would have to pass through checkpoints without identity documentation. Finally, she submitted that it was uncertain whether Erbil airport would issue him an identity letter, and that reliance on such a letter was hypothetical and speculative.
20. The Civil Status Identity Document (CSID) has now been replaced by the biometric Iraqi Nationality Identity Document (INID). The CSID is no longer issued in Iraq or elsewhere. Although a CSID may still have some short-term utility, its usefulness has diminished as the INID roll out has progressed and will continue to diminish as that process is completed. At the hearing, the appellant said that he had held a CSID before leaving Iraq and without being asked explained the difference between the two forms of documentation.
21. This decision replaces all existing country guidance on Iraq. Sections A, D and E of the following were previously contained in SMO & KSP (Civil status documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 00110 (IAC) (“SMO2”) and remain substantively unchanged. Sections B and C have been updated, with some parts remaining unamended from SMO2 in relation to travel to and within Federal Iraq.
22. Based on the undisputed evidence before us, mainly taken from SMO 2, we find the appellant as an Iraqi national in the United Kingdom will be able to enter Iraq if he is in possession of a current or expired Iraqi passport, or a laissez-passer. After all, Ms Tobin did not argue that Mr Tufan’s summary of the evidence was incorrect.
23. We next consider whether the appellant will be able to enter Iraq and obtain the documentation required for return. An application for an INID can be made at the Iraqi Embassy in the United Kingdom where the applicant can provide the required supporting documents, such as a passport or an expired identity card. The absence of one or more of the required identity documents is not fatal to an application for an INID at the Iraqi embassy in the United Kingdom. The family book records the details of all male family members as the registration system is patrilineal.
24. Therefore, if the appellant’s own INID is not available, a close male relative’s identity document may be used to identify the relevant Family Book record. Any one of the appellant’s nine male family members in Iraq could provide identity card details linking him to the same patrilineal family record.
25. The general process and standard requirements for applying for an INID at the Iraqi Embassy in the United Kingdom are essentially the same as those for an application made at a CSA office in Iraq. The main difference is that an applicant in the United Kingdom must provide proof of address in the United Kingdom, rather than an Iraqi residence card. The Iraqi Embassy in London has facilities to record an applicant’s biodata. We therefore find that the appellant will be able to make an application for an INID through the Iraqi Embassy in London, and that his return to Iraq is feasible.
26. The central issue is whether the appellant can contact family members to assist him in obtaining the documentation required for return. We find that he can. The burden is on RUM 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 nor anything to support an assertion that such an application would be refused.
27. In all of the circumstances, we find that it has not established that the appellant 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 also 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 where it has already been found he is not at risk on return or to relocate within the KRI.

DECISION
We dismiss the appeal

Signed by
suretachana
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Dated this 29th day of June 2026