Case No. UKUT-00544-(IAC)

. Section 67 of the 2002 Act envisages that there may be practical difficulties impeding or delaying making removal arrangements, but those difficulties do not alter the fact that the failed asylum seeker would be safe in his own country and therefore is in no need of refugee or humanitarian protection. I agree with the Secretary of State that the sur place cases are distinguishable because there the applicant could be returned and would be at risk if he were to be returned. They are not impediment to return cases. “ (emphasis added) 168. We consider that the judgments in HF (Iraq) are of considerable importance in formulating any country guidance regarding entitlement to international protection claims involving lack of documentation. If return is not feasible (to use the term employed by Elias LJ), then it is plain from paragraph 101 of the judgment that a tribunal must not hypothesise any potential situations on return, by reference to what documentation the returnee may or may not have or be able to obtain. We simply do not know. It appears to us this means that many appeals to the First-tier Tribunal, arising from refused protection claims by Iraqis, will fall into this category. It will only be when return is found to be feasible that the issue of documentation (or the lack of it) will be able to play a part in the determination of an appellant’s entitlement to protection. 169. On one reading of HF (Iraq ) – particularly the highlighted passage in paragraph 101 – the impossibility of return could be said to make it unnecessary to hypothesise any risk to an appellant in the country of proposed return, whether or not stemming from a lack of documentation or similar problem. We do not, however, consider that the Court can be taken to have intended such a reading. There may be cases where it will be evident that the person concerned would be at real risk of persecution or serious harm irrespective of lack of documentation. Were Nazi persecution of the Jews occurring today, it would clearly subvert the purpose of the Convention to deny refugee status on the basis that, regardless of what might happen to appellants on return because they are Jewish, they cannot in practice be returned (whether because of documentation or mere refusal to admit Jews to Nazi Germany). For this reason, we consider that the judgment in HF (Iraq ) does not preclude a claim to international protection from succeeding, insofar as the asserted risk of harm is not (or not solely) based on factors (such as lack of documentation) that currently render a person’s actual return unfeasible. 170. In the absence of an expired or current Iraqi passport, a person can only be returned to Baghdad using a laissez-passer. According to Dr Fatah, either a CSID or INC or a photocopy of a previous Iraqi passport and a police report noting that it had been lost or stolen is required in order to obtain a laissez-passer. If a person does not have one of these documents then they cannot obtain a laissez-passer and therefore cannot be returned. This has a significant bearing on what we have just said. If the position is that the Secretary of State can feasibly remove an Iraqi national, then she will be expected to tell the tribunal whether and if so what documentation has led the Iraqi authorities to issue the national with the passport or laissez passer (or signal their intention to do so). The Tribunal will need to know, in particular, whether the person concerned has a CSID. It is only where return is feasible but the individual concerned does not have a CSID that the consequences of not having one come into play.