UI2024003612 [2025] UKAITUR UI2024003612 (20 March 2025)

A black background with a black square Description automatically generated with medium confidence

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER

Case No: UI-2024-003612

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/54821/2023

LP/01189/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 20 March 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O'BRIEN

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ANTHONY

Between

S.S.

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant

and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation :

For the Appellant: Ms E Rutherford (Counsel instructed by AB Legal Solicitors)

For the Respondent: Mr P Lawson (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 17 February 2025

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. This is the re-making of the decision in the appellant's appeal, following the setting aside of the decision of First Tier Tribunal Judge Groom ("the Judge"), who had dismissed the appellant's protection and human rights appeal. The decision of Upper Tribunal Judge Neville setting aside the Judge's decision is appended to this decision as a separate annex.

We have decided to maintain the anonymity order originally made in these proceedings by the First-tier Tribunal because the underlying claim involves international protection issues in that the appellant claims to fear persecution or serious harm on return to Iraq. In reaching this decision, we are mindful of the fundamental principle of open justice, but we are satisfied, taking the appellant's case at its highest for these purposes, that the potential grave risks outweigh the right of the public to know of his identity.

Background

The appellant is a national of Iraq who entered the United Kingdom on 18 August 2015. His first asylum claim was refused by the respondent on 10 December 2015, and his appeal against that decision dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Ransley on 13 April 2017. Judge Ransley found that the appellant was not credible, was not Yazidi as he had claimed, would not be treated by the Iraqi authorities as being associated with Islamic State, and would therefore not be at risk on return to Iraq. An onward appeal against Judge Ransley's decision was dismissed by Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis on 15 December 2017.

The appellant made further submissions on 20 December 2022 that were accepted by the respondent as a fresh protection claim, which was then refused in a decision dated 18 July 2023. The appellant's appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Judge in a decision promulgated on 14 June 2024 ("the Decision"). The appellant had put forward the same claim as had already been rejected by Judge Ransley, plus two further claims: first, that he would be at risk from the authorities because of his political Facebook posts and second, because he did not have (and could not obtain) a Civil Status Identity Document ("CSID") or Iraqi National Identity Card ("INID") so would be at risk on return for the reasons given in SMO and KSP (Civil status documentation, article 15) (CG)) Iraq [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC) ("SMO2"). The Judge rejected all those claims, relying on the findings made in the previous decision of Judge Ransley and on her own findings concerning the appellant's credibility.

Appeal to the Upper Tribunal

On 28 June 2024, the appellant applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a single ground, namely that the Judge failed to make clear findings on whether or not the appellant was in possession of a CSID or INID document and, if not, why he would be able to rely on family members or others to obtain one. Permission was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge C Scott on 6 August 2024. None of the Judge's other findings have been challenged.

In a decision dated 23 December 2024, Upper Tribunal Judge Neville found there was a material error of law in the Judge's decision. Upper Tribunal Judge Neville held the Judge did not make any findings in respect of whether the appellant is still in possession of his CSID, or whether it was safe in his family home in Iraq and could be brought to him. Therefore, although reliance had been placed by the Judge on the decision of Judge Ransley, Judge Ransley did not find those documents reliable. Thus, a finding was still required on whether the appellant has, or can obtain, a CSID and, if not, whether that puts him at risk in accordance with SMO2 and the country evidence. Upper Tribunal Judge Neville held that arguments about the appellant's lack of credibility may have been a good place to start that analysis, but not where to end it. Upper Tribunal Judge Neville held that the decision of the Judge therefore failed to resolve a material matter between the parties. The decision was accordingly set aside. Upper Tribunal Judge Neville held that all of the Judge's findings were preserved save in relation to the issue of whether the appellant has a CSID or INID, whether he can obtain one, and if not, the consequences on return.

The Hearing

Following the making of a transfer order, this appeal was listed before us for re-making on 17 February 2025. The sole issue to be determined in the appellant's appeal is the narrow issue of the appellant's documentation and risk on return as a result, if any.

Both parties had made a Rule 15 (2A) application to adduce further evidence. The respondent wished to rely on the bundle of evidence which was before Judge Ransley. This bundle included a copy of the CSID which Judge Ransley found unreliable. Furthermore, the respondent sought to expand the Rule 15 (2A) application to include information gathered from the Iraqi Embassy website which was set out at paragraph 6 to 10 of the respondent's skeleton argument. The appellant sought permission to rely on an article "Iraq to stop using old IDa [sic] from March 2024". Both parties had filed a skeleton argument prior to the hearing. Mr Lawson had no objections to the appellant's rule 15(2A) application on the basis that the respondent had already dealt with the matter at paragraph 5 of the respondent's skeleton argument. Miss Rutherford objected to the respondent's new rule 15(2A) application. Having heard brief arguments, we gave permission to both parties to rely on the additional evidence as all matters raised appeared relevant to the issues we have to consider.

We raised with Mr Lawson the viability of the respondent's argument at paragraph 4 of the skeleton argument. It is argued that Judge Ransley's decision simply made a finding that the appellant's Iraqi nationality certificate was unreliable. The skeleton argument states that no such finding was made in relation to the CSID. The respondent argues that given no such findings were made, the appellant is accordingly a documented individual with a CSID that is genuine and reliable and therefore faces no real risk of serious harm on return.

The appellant's skeleton argument makes a forceful point namely that if the respondent's position is that the CSID is genuine, it must follow that the respondent also accepts that the appellant is Yazidi as claimed given the CSID confirms the appellant's religion. We invited Mr Lawson to address us on whether this means the respondent now accepts the appellant should be granted refugee status. Mr Lawson agreed with our observation that there is a contradiction in the respondent's position at paragraph 4 of the skeleton argument. Mr Lawson confirmed he was not seeking to rely on the sections of the skeleton argument which sought to advance the point that the CSID produced before Judge Ransley was a genuine CSID. Mr Lawson submits that the respondent's position remains that the documents placed before Judge Ransley were unreliable and that the issue before this Tribunal is whether the appellant has access to a CSID. Miss Rutherford was in agreement with the issue as expressed by Mr Lawson.

We heard oral evidence from the appellant, who was assisted by a Kurdish Sorani court interpreter. At the conclusion of the oral evidence, we heard oral submissions from both advocates. At the end of the hearing, we reserved our decision. We do not propose to rehearse the oral evidence heard and the oral submissions made here, but will consider and address these as part of our analysis set out below.

Analysis and Conclusions

Provenance of the Documentation

The starting point is the findings of fact made by Judge Ransley. The respondent's argument is that the appellant was found not to be credible by Judge Ransley who had rejected the genuineness of the documents he had produced on that occasion. Mr Lawson argues that this would indicate that the appellant was willing to use false documents to mislead the Tribunal. Mr Lawson argues that appellant's evidence must therefore be viewed with some caution. Mr Lawson stated in his oral submissions that the appellant must therefore have his CSID in Iraq with his family. Mr Lawson refers to Judge Ransley's finding that the appellant was in contact with his stepmother and family and argues that they can meet him at the airport on return with his documents.

Miss Rutherford's argument in response is that the appellant has given credible evidence before us as to how he obtained the CSID and the Iraqi nationality certificate which was placed before Judge Ransley. We were urged to accept the appellant's oral evidence.

The oral evidence we heard is that the appellant asked a third party to obtain his CSID from his family home which had been wrecked and abandoned. The appellant's evidence is that he produced the documents in good faith and he had no reason to suspect that those documents obtained by the third party were not his CSID and Iraqi nationality certificate. When Judge Ransley found that the documents were unreliable, the appellant's oral evidence is that he contacted the third party to question why he had been betrayed and given unreliable documents.

Having heard oral evidence, we find the appellant to have given truthful evidence as to the provenance of the documents. We find he answered each question in cross examination consistently and without embellishment. We accept the appellant's evidence that he did ask a third party to go to his family home which had been abandoned to locate his CSID and Iraqi nationality certificate. We accept the appellant's oral evidence that he did not know that the documents the third party gave him were unreliable. We find there is no persuasive evidence that the appellant was personally involved or aware of falsification of documents. We find the appellant's credibility is accordingly not damaged by the unreliable documents provided to him by the third party. We also heard evidence from the appellant as to why he did not have his documents on him when he had to flee Iraq. We accept his evidence that he did not have time to think about gathering his documents before he was forced to flee. We conclude at this juncture that the appellant, while in the UK and as at the date of this hearing, does not have in his own possession, a CSID or any other form of Iraqi identity or travel document.

The question we have to consider is whether the appellant can now obtain his documents. Relevant to the issue of the appellant's documents is firstly whether the appellant is in, or could re-establish, contact with his family members.

Appellant's Contact with Family Members

The respondent's primary submission is that the appellant still has a stepmother and that the stepmother could assist him in either forwarding identity documents to him to enable his re-documentation in the UK or to enable this shortly after his arrival in Iraq. If the latter, the respondent submits that the appellant's stepmother could also assist in meeting him at the airport on his return with his documents.

We have considered whether the appellant can seek the help of his stepmother. We find from Judge Ransley's decision that the appellant's stepmother lives in Kurdistan. We find the appellant could not ask his stepmother to access any documents on his behalf because she is not local to the family home which had been abandoned. It is also the appellant's evidence that he no longer has contact with his stepmother. Having heard oral evidence, we accept the appellant was truthful in his evidence that he has not kept in contact with his stepmother. We find that even if he did, the stepmother is unlikely to be able to assist the appellant with redocumentation because she is unrelated to him and is not a male member of the family.

We have considered whether there are any other family members who can assist with accessing the appellant's documents. Mr Lawson did not challenge the credibility of the appellant's evidence that his father is deceased; that he did not know his mother and that his half-sister died. We find the respondent did not suggest that the appellant was otherwise untruthful or unreliable on whether he has had or continues to have contact with other family members including any male family members. We therefore accept the appellant's evidence and place considerable weight upon this.

Considering the passage of time since the appellant left Iraq in or around July 2015, nearly 10 years ago, and considering the totality of the evidence on this issue before us, we accept that the appellant does not have contact with any family members and that he has been unable to re-establish contact with any family members. We have also reached findings in favour of the appellant in relation to him losing contact with his mother and the death of his sister and father.

For the reasons above, we do not accept that the appellant can resort to any family members in order to assist him with retrieving any existing identity documents nor with otherwise meeting the appellant and assisting with his subsequent re-documentation.

Re-documenting the Appellant from the UK

In the alternative, Mr Lawson submitted that the appellant is able to re-document himself as a result of a recent programme conducted in the Iraqi Embassy in the UK. Mr Lawson relied on paragraphs 7 to 9 of the respondent's skeleton argument which has extracts from the Iraqi Embassy's website. These passages confirm the Iraqi Embassy is providing appointments for applying for the National Card (in a trial phase), starting from Monday, 21 October 2024. Applicants would be required to provide documents from a list and these were: Certificate of Iraqi nationality in the name of the applicant, or submission of an Iraqi nationality certificate or national card of support (father, mother, brother, sister, paternal grandfather, uncle); Civil status identity card; Iraqi passport; proof of identity (if no document is provided in the applicant's name); a document to prove the address.

We have considered the extracts set out in the respondent's skeleton argument and the hyperlinks to the website. We make the following findings of fact. Firstly, we find the appellant is required to provide some evidence of identity. We have already found as at the date of this hearing, he does not have in his own possession, a CSID or any other form of Iraqi identity or travel document. We have also found he does not have contact with any family members who can assist with accessing his documents. Considering the appellant has no form of Iraqi identity document and no contact with other members of his family, we find the evidence produced by the respondent does not demonstrate how the appellant would be re-documented.

For the reasons above, we are satisfied that the appellant is reasonably unlikely to secure an Iraqi identity document, whether in the UK or on arrival in Iraq, which would permit him to enter Iraq and to travel internally without subjecting him to treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.

Notice of Decision

25. Pursuant to Upper Tribunal Judge Neville's decision, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law.

26. We remake the decision by allowing the appellant's appeal against the respondent's decision dated 18 July 2023 on humanitarian protection grounds.

Farin Anthony

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber

ANNEX

A black and white emblem with lions and unicorns AI-generated content may be incorrect.

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER

Case No: UI-2024-003612

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/54821/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

.......................................

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE NEVILLE

Between

S S

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant

and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation :

For the Appellant: Ms E Rutherford, counsel instructed by AB Legal Solicitors

For the Respondent: Mr A Tan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 16 October 2024

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 from Iraq and entered the United Kingdom on 18 August 2015. His first asylum claim was refused by the respondent on 10 December 2015, and his appeal against that decision dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Ransley on 13 April 2017. Judge Ransley found that the appellant was not credible, was not Yazidi as he had claimed, would not be treated by the Iraqi authorities as being associated with Islamic State, and would therefore not be at risk on return to Iraq. An onward appeal against Judge Ransley's decision was dismissed by Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis on 15 December 2017.

2. The appellant made further submissions on 20 December 2022 that were accepted by the respondent as a fresh protection claim, which was then refused in a decision dated 18 July 2023. The appellant's appeal against that decision was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Groom in a decision promulgated on 14 June 2024 (from now on, "the Decision"). The appellant had put forward the same claim as had already been rejected by Judge Ransley, plus two further claims: first, that he would be at risk from the authorities because of his political Facebook posts and second, because he did not have (and could not obtain) a CSID or INID so would be at risk on return for the reasons given in SMO and KSP (Civil status documentation, article 15) (CG)) Iraq [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC) (" SMO2"). Judge Groom rejected all those claims, relying on the findings made in the previous decision and on her own findings concerning the appellant's credibility. In relation to the documentation aspect of the claim, she held that:

35. The appellant asserts that he is undocumented and cannot seek the assistance of any male family members in Iraq to re document himself. The appellant states that his father has passed away, he has no other male relatives. His stepmother still resides in Iraq; however, he claims that she has moved away from the area where they previously lived. The appellant stated in oral evidence that his stepmother did contact him after he had arrived in the UK in 2015, but there has been no contact since that time and the appellant stated he made no efforts to contact his stepmother since.

36. I note the previous decision of Judge Ransley at paragraph 60 which refers specifically to the appellant's stepmother and that his stepmother has her own brothers to support her in Iraq. I also note that at the hearing before Judge Ransley, the appellant in fact produced some identity documents despite claiming in an earlier screening interview that he had lost his identity documents, paragraph 53 refers.

37. Judge Ransley found the appellant to be an unreliable witness. I do not consider that the appellant has demonstrated very good reasons to depart from the findings of Judge Ransley. It is apparent he has a stepmother in Iraq who he accepts contacted him after his arrival into the UK, although now claims he made no attempts to contact her since approximately 2015. It is also apparent that his stepmother has male family members. The appellant has also claimed in the past that he has been able to seek assistance from friends with regards to documentation. Overall, I do not accept that the appellant has no one to turn to in Iraq who would be unable to assist him regarding documentation.

38. I find that the appellant has not established substantial grounds for believing that he would face a real risk of suffering serious harm due to an absence of relevant documentation. I find that his claim for protection fails.

3. The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal on a single ground, which asserted that in the above passage the Judge failed to make clear findings on whether or not the appellant was in possession of a CSID or INID document and, if not, why he would be able to rely on family members or others to obtain one. Permission was granted by FtT Judge C Scott (as she then was) on 6 August 2024. None of the Judge's other findings have been challenged.

Consideration

4. In SMO2, it was held that:

11. The CSID is being replaced with a new biometric Iraqi National Identity Card - the INID. As a general matter, it is necessary for an individual to have one of these two documents in order to live and travel within Iraq without encountering treatment or conditions which are contrary to Article 3 ECHR. Many of the checkpoints in the country are manned by Shia militia who are not controlled by the GOI and are unlikely to permit an individual without a CSID or an INID to pass.

5. The Appeal Skeleton Argument submitted in the First-tier Tribunal squarely raised a claim that the appellant fell into this risk category, possessing neither document, nor able to travel to obtain one, as follows:

In addition our client will need to attend his local civil status office in person to obtain an INID. The Country Policy and Information Note Iraq: Internal relocation, civil documentation and returns October 2023, Annex E confirms that the CSID is no longer issued in Iraq. To attend in person would mean the Appellant would have to travel overland from his point of entry in Iraq and there is a risk of Article 3 ECHR harm in such circumstances in the absence of a CSID...

6. That claim was acknowledged and refuted in the Respondent's Review. It was an issue between the parties that the Tribunal had to resolve. The Decision approached it as follows:

7. I consider, contrary to the arguments in the rule 24 Response and made by Mr Tan, that finding family support to be available does not answer the issue. The appeal was argued on the basis that the appellant would have to attend in person to obtain an INID, and could not get to the relevant office without a CSID. If the Judge had found that the appellant is still in possession of his CSID, or that it is sitting safe in his family home in Iraq and could be brought to him, that would have been enough. The Judge reaches no such finding. The final sentence at [36] seems to imply that a CSID or the documentation to obtain one may have been brought to the hearing before Judge Ransley, but such a finding would have to reason its way round no documentation claim having been made in that appeal, and that Judge Ransley had doubted the genuineness of the documents produced at the hearing.

8. Mr Tan argued that Judge Ransley had only found one of the documents - a "national certificate" - to be unreliable:

52. During re-examination the appellant was asked, "You said your friends sent your ID documents - when did you obtain them?" The appellant evaded the question.

53. The appellant's unambiguous answer to Q1.16 of the screening interview is that he had lost his ID documents. On appeal the appellant had produced an ID card and a national certificate. It is material that during re-examination he was evasive when he was asked about the point of time he came Into possession of the ID documents.

54. Mr Philip relied on the Refugee World report "Iraq: Availability of fraudulent Identification documents, including passports, national identity cards, certificates of nationality and birth certificates; state efforts to combat fraud (January 2016); this report shows that fraudulent documents are prevalent in Iraq.

55. Looking at the evidence in the round, I find that the national certificate submitted by the appellant on appeal cannot be accepted as a reliable document.

I reject that any inference can be drawn that the ID card's reliability was found to remain intact. Judge Ransley specifies the national certificate at [55] because it listed the appellant as Yazidi and that was the issue to be decided. Her conclusion relies on adverse observations concerning the ID card. Nor is it clear that the unspecified ID card was a CSID card as it is argued would be required.

9. A finding was required on whether the appellant has, or can obtain, a CSID and, if not, whether that puts him at risk in accordance with SMO2 and the country evidence. His lack of credibility may have been a good place to start that analysis, but not where to end it. The Decision therefore failed to resolve a material matter between the parties and is set aside. All the Judge's findings are preserved save in relation to the issue of whether the appellant has a CSID or INID, whether he can obtain one, and if not, the consequences on return. That will be decided when the Upper Tribunal re-makes the decision, according to the following directions:

a. The re-making hearing will be listed with a time estimate of 3 hours in Birmingham, to be heard face-to-face on the first available date after 27 January 2025 with a Kurdish (Sorani) interpreter.

b. Should the parties seek to rely upon any further evidence not previously before the First-tier Tribunal, that evidence shall be filed with the Upper Tribunal and served upon the other party in an indexed, consolidated bundle, together with any relevant application under Rule 15(2A) of the Procedure Rule, no later than 7 days before the date of the hearing.

c. Skeleton arguments shall be filed and served by both parties no later than 3 days before the hearing.

J Neville

Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber

2 December 2012

Amended as shown in red on 23 December 2024 - J Neville

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments >> UI2024003612 [2025] UKAITUR UI2024003612 (20 March 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2024003612.html Cite as: [2025] UKAITUR UI2024003612

United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments