RIS (Anonymity Direction Made) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department IA/08184/2021 [2023]

This case concerned an Iraqi national who sought an appeal against the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT), who dismissed the Appellant’s initial appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse his protection claim.

The Appellant claimed asylum in the UK based on his imputed political opinion placed on him by reason of association with his brother who he declared was employed as an interpreter for an American organisation. The Appellant claimed that his life was at risk and if he returned to Iraq, he would be killed by non-state actors because of his brother’s employment. The Appellant’s claim was refused by the Secretary of State on asylum, humanitarian protection, and human rights grounds as they believed it was lacking in detail and was not credible. The decision was appealed and was heard by FTT Judge Garratt.

Judge Garratt found that the appellant had not given an accurate account of his reasons for leaving Iraq, due to “inconsistencies and vagueness”. It was concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Appellant’s brother worked as an interpreter for an American organisation and that it “was not reasonably likely that the appellant’s brother was working in an official capacity as an interpreter unless he possessed a qualification that would show his translation work was accurate”. Judge Garratt further concluded that he was not satisfied that the Appellant had shown he fled from Iraq with his sister, as he claimed, and that, although he feared serious harm from non-state actors, he did not seek the help from the Iraqi authorities. Therefore, Judge Garratt agreed that the Appellant did not meet the requirements of being a refugee.

Finally, it was decided by Judge Garratt that, if the Appellant’s claims were indeed true, he would have likely taken both his passport and Civil Status Identity Documentation (CSID) with him to avoid any identification issues on his journey to the UK. The Judge considered the case of SMO, KSP & IM (Article 15(c); identity documents) Iraq CG [2019] UKUT 400 (IAC) (20 December 2019) (‘SMO’) and concluded that the Appellant could return to Baghdad with his passport and, as Judge Garratt was not satisfied that the appellant had lost contact with his family, his CSID could be delivered to him. The Appellant could otherwise return to live with his family in Kirkuk “taking into account the sliding scale assessment required in SMO”. His appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Appellant sought, and was granted, permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UT). The UT found that FTT Judge Garratt had made a number of errors of law in the case, including regarding the Appellant’s brothers’ employment, and stated the UT stated that they “accept that the said evidence, in itself, is not a sufficient basis upon which to find that that the appellant’s brother needed a qualification in order to be employable/employed as an interpreter”. However, the UT concluded that Judge Garratt was entitled to find the Appellant’s explanations as to why he did not seek help from the Iraqi authorities unsatisfactory when viewed considering the evidence. Overall, the UT found that the other findings made by the FTT were correct and that they would have reached the same conclusions. The FTT’s conclusions were not “infected by any material errors of law” and the decision was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

By: Hanna Barzinji