M A-H ( Iraq) v Secretary of state For the home department

Country guidance on Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive concerns the distinct problem of serious risk from generalised, indiscriminate violence in armed conflict. Guidance on internal relocation in that setting does not resolve whether relocation protects an individual facing a targeted threat from a militia able to pursue him across the country. A tribunal may find such a risk on the evidence, including expert evidence, and must read its determination fairly and as a whole. An assumed error about the practical requirements for entering the Kurdistan Regional Government is immaterial where the tribunal separately finds that the targeted threat would persist wherever the applicant relocated.

An Iraqi citizen claimed asylum after returning from Dubai. He alleged that associates of a powerful Iraqi politician had killed two brothers and would continue to target him. Immigration Judge Crawford accepted his account, allowed the appeal, and found that neither Baghdad nor internal relocation, including to the Kurdistan Regional Government, would provide sufficient protection.

Immigration Judge Alis upheld the factual findings but held that Crawford had made a material error of law concerning the expert evidence, entry requirements for the Kurdistan Regional Government, and [2010] UKUT 331. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether that conclusion involved a material error and whether the country guidance applied to a targeted, rather than generalised, threat.

Lord Justice Toulson gave the judgment. Lord Justices Tomlinson and Pill agreed. The appeal was allowed and Immigration Judge Crawford’s determination was reinstated.

1. Risk in the Kurdistan Regional Government. Read fairly and as a whole, paragraphs 44 and 45 of Crawford’s determination clearly found that the appellant faced a continuing risk from Al-Daini’s supporters in the Kurdistan Regional Government as well as elsewhere in Iraq. The expert evidence was capable of supporting that conclusion. Its references to the authorities’ inability to protect individuals from insurgent attacks, and to insurgent groups’ ability to share information and trace relocated persons, were expressed generally and were not confined to areas outside the Kurdistan Regional Government.
2. Scope of the country guidance. Crawford had considered HM and others (Article 15(c)) Iraq CG [2010] UKUT 331. That decision concerned generalised, indiscriminate violence within an armed conflict and internal relocation in that context. Its guidance did not determine whether relocation would protect an individual facing a specific targeted threat from a terrorist group able to pursue him throughout its reach. The targeted-risk question was fact-specific.
3. Materiality of the alleged entry error. Even assuming that Crawford had erred in finding that entry into the Kurdistan Regional Government would require a sponsor, the error was immaterial. Crawford went on to consider the case on the assumption that entry was possible and independently concluded that the appellant would remain a target wherever he relocated. Any ease of entry would equally facilitate pursuit by the militia.
4. Alleged abandonment. The record of submissions before the Upper Tribunal implicitly advanced the case that the appellant faced a specific risk in the Kurdistan Regional Government. The Court was not persuaded that this point had been abandoned and therefore did not need to determine the procedural approach that would have applied if it had been.

The respondent’s arguments were rejected. The appeal was allowed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal allowed; the decision of Immigration Judge Alis was rejected and Immigration Judge Crawford’s determination was reinstated: [2013] EWCA Civ 445.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — Immigration Judge Alis held that Crawford had made a material error of law, set aside the relocation findings, and reheard that issue.
• Immigration Judge Crawford — The appellant’s factual account was accepted and his appeal was allowed, with internal relocation found not to provide sufficient protection.