Case No. UKUT-00544-(IAC)

herein are to the territory of Iraq excluding the autonomous Iraqi Kurdish Region (“IKR”) unless otherwise stated. A. INDISCRIMINATE VIOLENCE IN IRAQ: ARTICLE 15(C) OF THE QUALIFICATION DIRECTIVE 1. There is at present a state of internal armed conflict in certain parts of Iraq, involving government security forces, militias of various kinds, and the Islamist group known as ISIL. The intensity of this armed conflict in the so-called “contested areas”, comprising the governorates of Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, (aka Ta’min), Ninewah and Salah Al-din, is such that, as a general matter, there are substantial grounds for believing that any civilian returned there, solely on account of his or her presence there, faces a real risk of being subjected to indiscriminate violence amounting to serious harm within the scope of Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. 2. The degree of armed conflict in certain parts of the “Baghdad Belts” (the urban environs around Baghdad City) is also of the intensity described in paragraph 1 above, thereby giving rise to a generalised Article 15(c) risk. The parts of the Baghdad Belts concerned are those forming the border between the Baghdad Governorate and the contested areas described in paragraph 1. 3. The degree of armed conflict in the remainder of Iraq (including Baghdad City) is not such as to give rise to indiscriminate violence amounting to such serious harm to civilians, irrespective of their individual characteristics, so as to engage Article 15(c). 4. In accordance with the principles set out in Elgafaji (C-465/07) and QD (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 620, decision-makers in Iraqi cases should assess the individual characteristics of the person claiming humanitarian protection, in order to ascertain whether those characteristics are such as to put that person at real risk of Article 15(c) harm. B. DOCUMENTATION AND FEASIBILITY OF RETURN (excluding IKR) 5. Return of former residents of the Iraqi Kurdish Region (IKR) will be to the IKR and all other Iraqis will be to Baghdad. The Iraqi authorities will allow an Iraqi national (P) in the United Kingdom to enter Iraq only if P is in possession of a current or expired Iraqi passport relating to P, or a laissez passer. 6. No Iraqi national will be returnable to Baghdad if not in possession of one of these documents. 7. In the light of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in HF (Iraq) and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1276, an international protection claim made by P cannot succeed by reference to any alleged risk of harm arising from an absence of Iraqi identification documentation, if the Tribunal finds that P’s return is not currently feasible, given what is known about the state of P’s documentation. C. POSITION ON DOCUMENTATION WHERE RETURN IS FEASIBLE 8. It will only be where the Tribunal is satisfied that the return of P to Iraq is feasible that the issue of alleged risk of harm arising from an absence of Iraqi identification documentation will require judicial determination. 9. Having a Civil Status Identity Document (CSID) is one of the ways in which it is possible for an Iraqi national in the United Kingdom to obtain a passport or a laissez passer. Where the Secretary of State proposes to remove P by means of a passport or laissez passer, she will be expected to demonstrate to the Tribunal what, if any, identification documentation led the Iraqi authorities to issue P with the passport or laissez passer (or to signal their intention to do so). 10. Where P is returned to Iraq on a laissez passer or expired passport, P will be at no risk of serious harm at the point of return by reason of not having a current passport or other current form of Iraqi identification document. 11. Where P’s return to Iraq is found by the Tribunal to be feasible, it will generally be necessary to decide whether P has a CSID, or will be able to obtain one, reasonably soon after arrival in Iraq. A CSID is generally required in order for an Iraqi to access financial assistance from the authorities; employment; education; housing; and medical treatment. If P shows there are no family or other members likely to be able to provide means of support, P is in general likely to face a real risk of destitution, amounting to serious harm, if, by the time any funds provided to P by the Secretary of State or her agents to assist P’s return have been exhausted, it is reasonably likely that P will still have no CSID. 12. Where return is feasible but P does not have a CSID, P should as a general matter be able to obtain one from the Civil Status Affairs Office for P’s home Governorate, using an Iraqi passport (whether current or expired), if P has one. If P does not have such a passport, P’s ability to obtain a CSID may depend on whether P knows the page and volume number of the book holding P’s information (and that of P’s family). P’s ability to persuade the officials that P is the person named on the relevant page is likely to depend on whether P has family members or other individuals who are prepared to vouch for P. 13. P’s ability to obtain a CSID is likely to be severely hampered if P is unable to go to the Civil Status Affairs Office of P’s Governorate because it is in an area where Article 15(c) serious harm is occurring. As a result of the violence, alternative CSA Offices for Mosul, Anbar and Saluhaddin have been established in Baghdad and Kerbala. The evidence does not demonstrate that the “Central Archive”, which exists in Baghdad, is in practice able to provide CSIDs to those in need of them. There is, however, a National Status Court in Baghdad, to which P could apply for formal recognition of identity. The precise operation of this court is, however, unclear. D. INTERNAL RELOCATION WITHIN IRAQ (OTHER THAN THE IRAQI KURDISH REGION) 14. As a general matter, it will not be unreasonable or unduly harsh for a person from a contested area to relocate to Baghdad City or (subject to paragraph 2 above) the Baghdad Belts. 15. In assessing whether it would be unreasonable/unduly harsh for P to relocate to Baghdad, the following factors are, however, likely to be relevant: (a) whether P has a CSID or will be able to obtain one (see Part C above); (b) whether P can speak Arabic (those who cannot are less likely to find employment); (c) whether P has family members or friends in Baghdad able to accommodate him; (d) whether P is a lone female (women face greater difficulties than men in finding employment); (e) whether P can find a sponsor to access a hotel room or rent accommodation; (f) whether P is from a minority community; (g) whether there is support available for P bearing in mind there is some evidence that returned failed asylum seekers are provided with the support generally given to IDPs. 16. There is not a real risk of an ordinary civilian travelling from Baghdad airport to the southern governorates, suffering serious harm en route to such governorates so as engage Article 15(c). E. IRAQI KURDISH REGION 17. The Respondent will only return P to the IKR if P originates from the IKR and P’s identity has been ‘pre-cleared’ with the IKR authorities. The authorities in the IKR do not require P to have an expired or current passport, or laissez passer. 18. The IKR is virtually violence free. There is no Article 15(c) risk to an ordinary civilian in the IKR. 19. A Kurd (K) who does not originate from the IKR can obtain entry for 10 days as a visitor and then renew this entry permission for a further 10 days. If K finds employment, K can remain for longer, although K will need to register with the authorities and provide details of the employer. There is no evidence that the IKR authorities pro-actively remove Kurds from the IKR whose permits have come to an end. 20. Whether K, if returned to Baghdad, can reasonably be expected to avoid any potential undue harshness in that city by travelling to the IKR, will be fact sensitive; and is likely to involve an assessment of (a)the practicality of travel from Baghdad to the IKR (such as to Irbil by air); (b)the likelihood of K’s securing employment in the IKR; and (c) the availability of assistance from family and friends in the IKR. 21. As a general matter, a non-Kurd who is at real risk in a home area in Iraq is unlikely to be able to relocate to the IKR. F. EXISTING COUNTRY GUIDANCE DECISIONS 22. This decision replaces all existing country guidance on Iraq TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY CSID - Civil Status Identity Document DTM - Migration Displacement Tracking GoI - Government of Iraq IBC - Iraq Body Count IDP - Internally Displaced Person IED - Improvised Explosive Device IKR - Iraqi Kurdish Region INC - Iraqi Nationality Certificate IOM - International Organisation for Migration IRC - International Rescue Committee ISF - Iraqi Security Forces ISIL - Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant MODM - Ministry of Displacement and Migration MoI - Ministry of Interior NRC - Norwegian Refugee Council PACS - Protection and Assistance Centres PARCS - Protection, Assistance and Reintegration Centres PDS - Public Distribution System UNAMI - United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq USAID - United States Agency for International Development VARRP - Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme Anonymity Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI2008/269) an Anonymity Order is made. Unless the Upper Tribunal or Court orders otherwise, no report of any proceedings or any form of publication thereof shall directly or indirectly identify the original Appellant. This prohibition applies to, amongst others, all parties. DECISION AND REASONS Introduction 1. Each member of the panel has contributed to this decision. The appeal comes before us by order of Davis LJ sealed on the 25 October 2012, who remitted it: “ … for reconsideration pursuant to paragraph 12 of schedule 4 to the Transfer of Functions of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal Order 2010 and section 14 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007” . 2. This case has been identified to give country guidance on Iraq in light of circumstances in that country that have arisen since the decision in HM and others (Article 15 (c)) Iraq CG [2012] UKUT 00409 (IAC) (“HM2”). Our consideration has been limited to the issue of whether Article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC 1 (“the Qualification Directive”) prevents the removal of Iraqi nationals, and in particular the Appellant, to Iraq on the basis that they are entitled to subsidiary protection. 3. The Appellant is a national of Iraq who entered the United Kingdom on 7 January 2009, aged 17. He applied for asylum on the following day, having first been arrested. This application was refused by the Respondent on 18 June 2009 and on the same date a decision was made to remove the Appellant to Iraq pursuant to section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The Appellant appealed this decision to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal on Refugee Convention, humanitarian protection and human rights grounds, but his appeal was dismissed by Immigration Judge Batiste in a determination dated 7 September 2009. On 27 January 2010 Burnett J (as he then was) ordered the Tribunal to reconsider the Appellant’s appeal. Thereafter, on the 23 June 2010, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Wynne set aside the determination of Immigration Judge Batiste on the basis that: “… the IJ’s treatment of the expert evidence was contradictory because the IJ preferred the expert on factual matters to the COIS report but approached the report with “a great deal of circumspection” and placed “very limited weight” on it. Thus the IJ rejected aspects of the expert evidence whilst accepting other parts of it without adequate reasons for adopting this approach. … because the Appellant was at the relevant time under the age of 18, the IJ was wrong in taking into account what he is alleged to have said at his age assessment by social workers. … the IJ’s rejection of the Appellant’s humanitarian protection claim under Article 15c of the Qualification Directive is flawed for inadequate reasoning” 4. The re-making of the decision on the Appellant’s appeal was adjourned and came back before Judge Wynne on 22 February 2011, on which occasion the Appellant gave further oral evidence. Judge Wynne dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on all grounds in a determination dated 1 April 2011. In doing so it was accepted that: (i) the Appellant lived in the family home in Dubis, Kirkuk until he left Iraq at the end of 2008 to travel to the United Kingdom; (ii) the Appellant’s father died in 2006; and, (iii) the Appellant’s cousin is a lorry driver who remains living in Iraq, and is based in Kirkuk. Judge Wynne did not accept the truth of the Appellant’s evidence that: (i) his father had been a high ranking Ba’ath official, (ii) his uncle had been a Ba’ath official of lesser rank than his father and, (iii) his family (mother and sisters) had left Iraq for Syria. 5. The original grounds seeking permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal related solely to Judge Wynne’s assessment of the credibility of the evidence given by the Appellant. Moses LJ refused to grant the Appellant permission in relation to such grounds. However, shortly thereafter the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case of