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

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

 

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER	Case No: UI-2024-003358
	First-tier Tribunal No: PA/01597/2024

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

 

19 ^th February 2025

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANDES

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JOSHI

 

Between

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Appellant

and

 

ZH

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Respondent

Representation :

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

For the Respondent: Mr R Ahmed, Counsel for the Respondent

 

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 4 February 2025

 

Order Regarding Anonymity

 

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, ZH, the appellant before the First-Tier Tribunal, is granted anonymity.

 

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of ZH, likely to lead members of the public to identify him. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

 

1.               These written reasons reflect the decision which was given to the parties at the end of the hearing.

2.               The appellant, with the permission of Judge Boyes of the First-tier Tribunal, appealed against the decision of Judge Plowright of the First-tier Tribunal, ("the Judge"), who, in a decision promulgated on the 14 ^th of June 2024, allowed the respondent's appeal on humanitarian protection grounds only.

Anonymity Order

3.               We have continued the anonymity order made by the First-Tier Tribunal. We have considered the public interest in open justice, but we consider it is outweighed by the importance of facilitating the discharge of the United Kingdom's obligations to those claiming international protection because of the need for confidentiality.

Background

4.               The respondent is a citizen of Iraq who lived near Sulaymaniyah in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR). He is an adult born in 2004. He claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Iraq because of his race and imputed political opinion. This was based on his claim that he did some work for the PKK and in this role he was wrongly accused of being a spy for the Turkish government aiding them by installing a tracker on a bike resulting in a member of the PKK being killed.

5.               The Judge rejected the respondent's asylum claim finding him not credible at §§34 to 44 of the decision. However, the Judge at §§45 to 63 decided that even with the support of his family the respondent would not be able to travel to his home area safely without an identity document and allowed the appeal on humanitarian protection grounds applying the country guidance case of SMO & KSP & IM (Civil Status Documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC).

The appellant's appeal

6.               The appellant sought permission to appeal on two grounds: firstly that the Judge arguably erred in giving undue consideration to the respondent's friend's claim who was also granted humanitarian protection; and secondly that the Judge arguably erred by not having correctly applied SMO & KSP & IM (Civil Status Documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC) when assessing risk in light of having found that the respondent had family members in the IKR and had access to a CSID (that could be obtained and sent to him or given to him on arrival).

7.               Judge Boyes of the First-tier Tribunal did not limit the grounds and decided that:

"3. The grounds are clearly arguable. The Judge does not know the other person's case to which reference is made and had not heard the evidence in relation to it. It is arguable that one cannot sensibly infer one set of facts and a factual finding automatically applies to another."

The hearing before us

8.               At the outset of the hearing we brought to Mr Lawson's attention that the appellant's second ground wrongly argued that the respondent had access to his CSID. The Judge found at §§53 to 57 and at §62 of the decision that the respondent was in contact with his family but that he would still be without his CSID on return because it had been taken from him by the agent on his journey to the United Kingdom.

9.               Mr Lawson accepted this. However, he argued that the Judge in granting humanitarian protection was swayed by the respondent's friend's grant. He submitted that this was an error because it was unknown why his friend was granted humanitarian protection and that his friend did not provide oral evidence at the hearing.

10.           We considered that even if the Judge had erred in attaching weight to the friend's grant it may not be material to the finding that the respondent would be without his CSID. There was no challenge in the grounds relating to the finding at §55 that the agent had taken the respondent's CSID and no nexus between the friend's grant and the Judge's finding that the respondent would be without his CSID. We invited Mr Lawson to address us on this point.

11.           Mr Lawson agreed that in light of this finding and applying SMO & KSP & IM (Civil Status Documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC) even if the respondent was in contact with his family he would not have access to his CSID and on the evidence before the judge would not be able to obtain a new identity document (INID) by proxy. He accepted that without an identity document there would be an Article 3 breach. Mr Ahmed agreed.

Discussion and conclusions

12.           In the circumstances we are satisfied that the appellant's appeal discloses no material error of law.

13.           We find that it was open to the Judge to make his finding at §55 - having considered his own adverse credibility findings, the respondent's age, and the plausibility of an agent taking an identity document - that the respondent was no longer in possession of his CSID.

14.           The Judge considered the evidence relating to the respondent's friend at §§46 to 49 and - whilst noting at §48 that it was difficult to see what the difference was between the respondent's circumstances and his friend's - he did expressly state at §§48 and 49 that he had rightly considered the individual circumstances of the respondent.

15.           At §§62 and 63 the Judge in concluding that the respondent should be granted humanitarian protection did state that he considered as one factor that "his friend has been granted humanitarian protection." We find that the Judge may have erred in this regard, however, we have no doubt that this error was not material because it had no nexus to the Judge's findings at §57 that "the appellant is without a CSID or an INID" and at §62 that even with "the assistance of his family upon his arrival in Iraq, he would still be without his CSID card."

16.           We find that the Judge properly considered SMO & KSP & IM (Civil Status Documentation; article 15) Iraq CG [2022] UKUT 110 (IAC) at §§50 to 52 and the objective evidence at §§58 to 69 of the decision, and it was open to him to find that the respondent would not be able to safely travel to his home area without his identity document even with the support of his family.

Notice of decision

The appellant's appeal against the Judge's decision fails and is dismissed. The Judge's decision allowing the appeal on humanitarian protection grounds and dismissing the appeal on refugee convention grounds stands.

 

 

M D Joshi

 

Judge M D Joshi

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber

 

13 February 2025