SMO & Anor v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Country guidance on Iraq requires an individualised assessment of risk, documentation and relocation. Article 15(c) does not generally create a risk for civilians solely because of presence in Iraq, subject to a small area north of Baiji. Return and internal relocation must be assessed for safety, reasonableness and feasibility. A CSID or INID will generally be required for movement and access to ordinary life. Family Book details may be recalled or obtained from relatives, but the question is fact-sensitive. A Laissez Passer is normally confiscated on arrival and does not ordinarily facilitate onward travel. The 1957 Registration Document may assist with obtaining other documents but is not itself a travel document or a solution to undocumented status. Departure from country guidance requires very strong grounds supported by cogent evidence.

The appeals arose from the remittal of two Iraqi protection appeals after the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by consent on the question whether most Iraqi nationals would recall the volume and page reference of their Family Book entry. The Upper Tribunal was also asked to reconsider aspects of its earlier Iraq country guidance concerning the INID and CSID systems, Laissez Passers, supporting letters, the 1957 Registration Document and the Electronic Personal Registry Record. The parties agreed that the hearing should address the changed or additional evidence while preserving the earlier findings unless reconsideration was justified. The central issues were the availability and utility of identity documents, the feasibility of return and onward travel, and the circumstances in which existing country guidance could be revisited.

1. Disposition. The appeals were allowed and remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for further findings of fact and application of the amended country guidance. The appellants remained anonymous.
2. Departure from country guidance. A tribunal should depart from existing country guidance only where there are very strong grounds supported by cogent evidence. The respondent had not met that threshold in relation to the Laissez Passer or supporting letter. The earlier guidance on their lack of utility for onward travel was maintained.
3. Family Book details. The earlier conclusion that most Iraqi citizens would recall the relevant details was set aside. Some individuals may recall them and others may not. The issue requires a fact-sensitive assessment, including age, frequency of using or producing the details, dealings with officialdom and family circumstances. A tribunal may reject an unsupported assertion that the details cannot be recalled, and any lie may or may not have wider significance.
4. Documentation. Replacement CSIDs remain available through Iraqi consular facilities only where the individual is registered at a CSA office that has not transferred to the INID system. An INID requires personal attendance to enrol biometrics. A CSID or INID is generally necessary for movement through checkpoints and ordinary life in Iraq. The 1957 Registration Document exists in family and individual versions and may assist with obtaining a passport or other documentation, but it is not recognised for internal travel and is not, without more, a basis for finding return contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The evidence concerning the Electronic Personal Registry Record was too scant to make it material to the assessment.
5. Relocation and risk. Article 15(c) requires a fact-sensitive sliding-scale assessment in the Formerly Contested Areas. Internal relocation requires consideration of safety, reasonableness and feasibility, including sponsorship, residency, documentation, family or other support, ethnic and political factors and the conditions at the destination. The amended country guidance replaced the earlier guidance on the matters reconsidered.

1. Court of Appeal. The appeals from the earlier country guidance decision were allowed by consent on the issue concerning recall of Family Book details and remitted to the Upper Tribunal for determination.
2. Upper Tribunal. The present tribunal reconsidered that issue and related documentation questions, maintained most of the earlier guidance, amended the country guidance and remitted both appeals to the First-tier Tribunal.