Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001774
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/60990/2023
LP/01964/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 18 August 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FRANCES

Between

A S
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr K Pullinger, instructed by Rodman Pearce Solicitors Ltd
For the Respondent: Mr J Nappey, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 4 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
1. The appellant is a citizen of Iraq. He appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Mace and First-tier Tribunal Judge Koundouros (the judges) dated 18 February 2026 dismissing his appeal against the refusal of his protection claim on asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights grounds.
2. Permission was granted by Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Haria on 22 May 2026 for the following reasons:
“1. The Appellant a national of Iraq of Kurdish ethnicity from Sulaymaniyah in the IKR seeks permission to appeal the decision of FtT Judges Mace and Koundouros (the Judges) dismissing his protection and human rights appeal.
2. Ground 1 is not arguable. The Judges assessed the claim to have attended demonstrations in the UK at [40]–[46]. They were entitled to find the account lacking in detail and reliability and, in any event, that the Appellant had not shown he would have come to the adverse attention of the authorities given the absence of any identifying/social media evidence and the time that had elapsed since the last claimed attendance. Those are findings open to them on the evidence.
3. Ground 2 is not arguable. The documents said to have been obtained from the Iraqi Embassy were raised late, towards the end of cross-examination. The Judges refused admission at [76]–[79], explaining (i) the absence of any prior compliance with directions or application at the outset, and (ii) that they could determine the documentation issue fairly on the basis of the Appellant’s oral evidence and the country material before them. This was a case-management decision with reasons; it does not disclose procedural unfairness, nor is materiality demonstrated given the Judges proceeded on the basis that re-documentation in the UK was unlikely.
4. Ground 3: The Judges directed themselves to the relevant country guidance and background material at [71]–[75] and made findings at [83]–[93]. At the time of the decision, that approach disclosed no misdirection. However, subsequent country guidance in AH, AK & AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI) Iraq CG [2026] UKUT 00150 (IAC) and the Respondent’s May 2026 Country Bulletin Iraq: Internal relocation, civil documentation and returns (update following Country Guidance decision) clarifies that, for an individual from Sulaymaniyah, the point of return is Erbil airport, and that the risk analysis must extend to the feasibility and safety of onward travel from Erbil to Sulaymaniyah.
5. The Judges made no findings as to (i) the route the Appellant would be likely to take from Erbil to his home area in Sulaymaniyah, (ii) whether that journey would involve passing through checkpoints, or (iii) whether, absent an INID, he would be able to establish his identity so as to avoid a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR on that journey.
6. In those circumstances, it is arguable that, notwithstanding the otherwise sustainable findings on documentation, the decision is vitiated by a failure to engage with a material aspect of risk on return as now clarified by the most recent guidance. That issue is capable of affecting the outcome.
7. Permission to appeal is therefore granted limited to Ground 3 only.
3. On 14 April 2026, the Upper Tribunal promulgated the country guidance decision of AH, AK & AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI) Iraq CG [2026] UKUT 00150 (IAC). On 29 June 2026, the Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal against the decision on grounds of procedural unfairness. On 28 July 2026, the Court of Appeal approved and sealed the consent order and agreed statement of reasons in AH, AK & AJ and the decision has been set aside.
Submissions
4. Mr Pullinger accepted that permission had not been granted on the ground that the judges had misdirected themselves in respect of the country guidance and background evidence available at the date of the hearing. He submitted that, although matters had moved on since the grant of permission, the decision should be set aside because circumstances had changed. The respondent was no longer applying some of the findings in SMO & KSP (Civil status documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 00110 (IAC) (SMO2) and there was updated guidance in the Country Bulletin dated July 2026 (CB) which showed only one enforced medically escorted return to Sulaymaniyah. Voluntary returns are made to Erbil and enforced returns are made to Baghdad. Paragraph 85 of the judges’ decision did not reflect the position on ground. Sulaymaniyah was not a realistic location of return on the updated evidence.
5. Mr Pullinger submitted the judges did not identify where the appellant would be returned to and found that the appellant could still use his CSID to pass through check points. On the evidence in the CB that is no longer the case and the appellant must have an INID or a passport. It was accepted the appellant did not have a passport but the judges found that the appellant’s family could bring him his CSID. The judges found the appellant could not obtain documentation in the UK, but that situation has also changed. These matters should be considered at a re-hearing for the appellant to obtain evidence on the possibility of re-documentation in the UK given the respondent states in the CB that she is not clear on the requirements.
6. Mr Nappey submitted there was no error of law because it was clear from the CB that returns could be effected to Sulaymaniyah. There were more returns to Erbil because it was preferred practice, but the respondent had the ability to return to Sulaymaniyah. There was no reason to depart from SMO2 in this case, notwithstanding the changes in the CB in respect of documentation. There was no material error of law.
Conclusions and reasons
7. The country guidance applicable to the appellant’s case is SMO2. The judges properly applied SMO2 and considered the October 2025 CPIN. Permission was not granted on the basis of a misapplication of country guidance or failure to consider background evidence available at the date of hearing. There is no error of law in the judge’s decision arising from the failure to consider evidence which was not before them.
8. In any event, there is evidence in the CB that the respondent has the operational ability to return the appellant to Sulaymaniyah:
“5.1.3 Whilst the express wording of the DOI does not mention Sulaymaniyah as a destination of return, nor that those from the disputed territories could be returned to the KRI, Returns Logistics understand they still have the operational ability to return to Sulaymaniyah airport and to return those registered in the disputed territories to the KRI direct. Since the signing of the DOI, the Home Office have enforced the medically escorted return of one individual from the KRI to Sulaymaniyah airport. This reflects Returns Logistics practise that if returning to the KRI then return to Erbil Airport is their preferred option as it is logistically and operationally easier.
5.1.4 In respect of 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 whose enforced return was to Erbil. There have however been a number of voluntary returns of those from the disputed territories returning to Erbil and Sulaymaniyah.”
9. Further and alternatively, the CB does not undermine the findings at [93] that: “We do not consider it reasonably likely that he will suffer serious harm on return to the IKR on account of not having access to his ID documentation.”
10. I conclude that there was no material error of law in the judge’s decision dated 18 February 2026 and I dismiss the appellant’s appeal.

Notice of Decision
Appeal dismissed

J Frances

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

7 August 2026