News

On 14 April 2026, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) promulgated its country guidance judgment in AH, AK & AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI)Iraq CG UKUT 00150 (IAC), replacing all previous Iraq country guidance, including SMO & KSP. The decision provides updated binding guidance on returns via the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI), identity documentation, internal travel and Article 3 ECHR risk.

The case concerned three Iraqi nationals of Kurdish ethnicity from the Disputed Territories, who were challenging their removal from the UK to Iraq on the basis that they lacked the identity documents needed to return and travel safely and therefore would face a real risk of ill-treatment upon return.

The Tribunal held that despite there continues to be an internal armed conflict in parts of Iraq, the level of indiscriminate violence does not reach the threshold to constitute serious harm under Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, and that the general living conditions in Iraq do not in itself reach the threshold of Article 3 ECHR.

Regarding the Iraqi identity documentation system, the Tribunal held that the Civil Status Identity Document (CSID) is no longer issued and has been replaced by the biometric Iraqi National Identity Document (INID), and that, in principle, an INID is necessary in order to live and travel within Iraq without encountering treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.

In relation to return, the Tribunal confirmed that Iraqi nationals may in principle be returned to Erbil or Sulaymaniyah, including former residents of the Disputed Territories, and that individuals lacking CSID or INID documentation may receive a temporary airport letter to facilitate onward travel for re-documentation. It held that the real risk under Article 3 ECHR arises primarily during internal travel within Iraq, particularly at checkpoints, and depends on the route taken, available documentation, and access to family or local support. The absence of recognised identity documents may, in certain circumstances, create a real risk of ill-treatment. It further held that the feasibility of internal relocation must be assessed on an individual basis, and while relocation within the Kurdistan Region of Iraq may be viable for returnees with adequate documentation and family support, it may be unduly harsh where such factors are lacking.  

The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants could in principle obtain identity documentation through family assistance or Embassy procedures, and that return and internal movement would not necessarily give rise to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.