UTIAC A. Law
a) The guidance as to the law relating to Article 15(c) of the Refugee Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC given by the Tribunal in HM and Others (Article 15(c)) Iraq CG [2010] UKUT 331 (IAC) (‘HM1’) at [62]-[78] is reaffirmed. Of particular importance is the observation in HM1 that decision-makers ensure that following Elgafaji, Case C-465/07; [2009] EUECJ and QD (Iraq) [2009] EWCA Civ 620, in situations of armed conflict in which civilians are affected by the fighting, the approach to assessment of the level of risk of indiscriminate violence must be an inclusive one, subject only to the need for there to be a sufficient causal nexus between the violence and the conflict.
b) Given that country guidance cases may have an impact on a large number of asylum cases and appeals, their significance in saving costs in future cases, quite apart from their general importance, should require consideration of the grant of legal aid for representation in the public interest.
c) Whilst the Upper Tribunal will do all it can to ensure representation in a country guidance case, it cannot be excluded that in highly unusual circumstances such a case would proceed without claimant representation.
d) Though very considerable weight is almost always to be attached to UNHCR guidelines on risk categories in particular countries, it is not accepted that departure from the guidelines should only take place for a cogent and identified reason. Cases are to be decided on the basis of all the evidence and arguments presented to the Tribunal.
B. Country guidance
Whilst the focus of the present decision is the current situation in Iraq, nothing in the further evidence now available indicates that the conclusions that the Tribunal in HM1 reached about country conditions in Iraq were wrong.
As regards the current situation, the evidence does not establish that the degree of indiscriminate violence characterising the current armed conflict taking place in the five central governorates in Iraq, namely Baghdad, Diyala, Tameen (Kirkuk), Ninewah, Salah Al-Din, is at such a high level that substantial grounds have been shown for believing that any civilian returned there would solely on account of his presence there face a real risk of being subject to that threat.
Nor does the evidence establish that there is a real risk of serious harm under Article 15(c) for civilians who are Sunni or Shi’a or Kurds or have former Ba’ath Party connections: these characteristics do not in themselves amount to ‘enhanced risk categories’ under Article 15(c)’s ‘sliding scale’ (see [39] of Elgafaji).
Further evidence that has become available since the Tribunal heard MK (documents – relocation) Iraq CG [2012] UKUT 126 (IAC) does not warrant any departure from its conclusions on internal relocation alternatives in the KRG or in central or southern Iraq save that the evidence is now sufficient to establish the existence of a Central Archive maintained by the Iraqi authorities retaining civil identity records on microfiche, which provides a further way in which a person can identify themselves and obtain a copy of their CSID, whether from abroad or within Iraq.
Regarding the issue of whether there would be a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR arising from returns from the UK to Baghdad Interna tional Airport (BIAP):
a. If a national of Iraq who has failed to establish that conditions inside Iraq are unsafe is compulsorily returned to Baghdad International Airport (BIAP) on either a current or expired Iraqi passport, there is no real risk of detention in the course of BIAP procedures (except possibly in respect of those who are the subject of a judicial order or arrest warrant). Nor is there such a risk if such a person chooses to make a voluntary return with a laissez passer document which can be issued by the Iraqi embassy in the UK.
b. If, however, such a person is compulsorily returned to BIAP without either a current or expired Iraqi passport, he may be at risk of detention in the course of BIAP procedures and it cannot be excluded that the detention conditions might give rise to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. Such a risk is however, purely academic in the UK context because under the current UK returns policy there will be no compulsory return of persons lacking such documents.
Judges:
Collins J, Storey, Allen UTJJ
Citations:
[2012] UKUT 00409 (IAC)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Immigration
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466463
