Case No. UKUT-00544-(IAC)

51. In his skeleton argument Mr Bazini observed the Respondent’s acceptance that the “contested areas of Iraq should be considered as meeting the circumstances of internal armed conflict” . As a consequence, he identified the core issue before the Tribunal to be that of internal relocation from the contested areas to either Baghdad or to the Iraqi Kurdish Region. 52. It is said that the situation in Baghdad represents an Article 15(c) risk for an ordinary civilian; there being an enhanced risk for: (i) persons without established connections to Baghdad ; (ii) Kurds; and, (iii) Christians. There is no established Kurdish neighbourhood in Baghdad . 53. It was asserted that a pivotal issue in the assessment of whether it is reasonable for an Iraqi national to relocate is whether such person has Iraqi identity documents; a CSID being the gateway to other important documentation such an Iraqi Nationality Certificate (“INC”) and a Public Distribution System (“PDS”) card. Without a CSID it is not possible for a person to access either services or a livelihood. 54. Reference is made to Dr Fatah’s report of 27 February 2015 to the steps required to obtain a new CSID by a person living outside of Iraq . It is said that this includes the need to provide the reference number of a lost CSID. An original CSID and INC are required to obtain an Iraqi passport. Applications to obtain a laissez-passer are, and have been since November 2014, assessed on a case-by-case basis. 55. A person cannot be expected to travel from Baghdad to their home area in order to obtain a CSID and other documents, if the home area is a contested area. Evidence set out in Dr Fatah’s addendum report of 1 May 2015 identifies the difficulties that will be met by a person seeking to obtain a replacement CSID and/or INC in Baghdad , if that person is not from Baghdad . 56. As to internal relocation to Baghdad , it was submitted that this governorate is statistically the most violent, there having been an increase in violence in the governorate in 2014 and early 2015. A person “will struggle” in Baghdad if not an Arabic speaker and if he/she has no social network to assist in accessing employment and housing. 57. It was further asserted that if a person is returned to Erbil in the IKR and that person is not from the IKR, then such person will not be allowed to exit the airport absent production of a CSID and INC. In any event the IKR authorities do not allow persons from the disputed territories to transfer a food ration card to the IKR. Without a CSID and INC a person will have difficulties in accessing services provided by the state and its partners, in addition it is IKR policy to maintain as much Kurdish presence as possible in the disputed territories so as to strengthen its claim to those areas. There are other ‘elements’ which also govern the authorities entry policy to the IKR: (i) “Event driven nature” – there being greater difficulties faced by single travellers because of the conflict and restrictions have also been put in place to stem the flow of IDPs, (ii) “Ethno-religious nature” – members of particular communities (such as Sunni Arabs) being tarred by association with ISIL and (iii) “Arbitrary nature” – policies applied at checkpoints are unpredictable. In any event, unemployment is high in IKR and IDPs struggle to find work, public sector salaries are not being paid and there has been a suspension of investment in economic projects. 58. As regards the Appellant, he will not be able to obtain identity documentation in Baghdad and, in any event, he cannot access food rations there because these can only be accessed in the home governorate or by returning to the home governorate and transferring access elsewhere.