United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

This decision replaces all existing country guidance on Iraq.

22 April 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Kurd - Travel documents | Countries: Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1. This decision considers whether the appellant should be excluded from the protection of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (‘the Convention’) because there are serious reasons for considering that he committed crimes against humanity (Article 1F(a)) or in the alternative a serious non-political crime (Article 1F(b)) during his service in the Police d’Intervention Rapide (PIR) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

9 March 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Crimes against humanity - Exclusion clauses - International criminal law - Serious non-political crime | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).

3 March 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - Persons with disabilities - Statelessness - UNRWA | Countries: Lebanon - Palestine, State of - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The issue in the case focuses on the Defendant's determination of whether the Claimant is a child, as the effect of such a finding has an impact on a number of aspects of how he will be treated within the United Kingdom. The precise terms of the issue are themselves disputed: (1) The Claimant submits that his case is a challenge to the lawfulness of the decision of the Defendant, on 11 June 2021 ["the June determination"], that he was not a child. (2) The Defendant argues that these proceedings are, in fact, about their refusal to reassess the 11 June determination at some later date.

17 February 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Children-at-risk - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: South Sudan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1. In an Article 3 "living conditions" case, there must be a causal link between the Secretary of State's removal decision and any "intense suffering" feared by the returnee. This includes a requirement for temporal proximity between the removal decision and any "intense suffering" of which the returnee claims to be at real risk. This reflects the requirement in Paposhvili [2017] Imm AR 867 for intense suffering to be "serious, rapid and irreversible" in order to engage the returning State's obligations under Article 3 ECHR. A returnee fearing "intense suffering" on account of their prospective living conditions at some unknown point in the future is unlikely to be able to attribute responsibility for those living conditions to the Secretary of State, for to do so would be speculative.

2 February 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The issues in the appeal are (1) whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in assessing the lawfulness of the policy guidance by reference to whether it (a) created a real risk of more than a minimal number of children being detained, and/or (b) created a risk which could be avoided if the terms of the policy were better formulated; and (2) whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that criterion C, as construed in the context of the relevant policy as a whole, is unlawful.

30 July 2021 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Asylum policy - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Eritrea - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(i)Said [2016] EWCA Civ 442 is not to be read to exclude the possibility that Article 3 ECHR could be engaged by conditions of extreme material deprivation. Factors to be considered include the location where the harm arises, and whether it results from deliberate action or omission. (ii) In cases where the material deprivation is not intentionally caused the threshold is the modified N test set out in AM (Zimbabwe) [2020] UKSC 17. The question will be whether conditions are such that there is a real risk that the individual concerned will be exposed to intense suffering or a significant reduction in life expectancy. (iii) The Qualification Directive continues to have direct effect following the UK withdrawal from the EU.

22 July 2021 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Livelihoods | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

27 May 2021 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Political asylum - Political situation - Returnees | Countries: Sri Lanka - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1. The word “admissible” must mean in the context of paragraph 403(c) the ability to enter lawfully and reside lawfully. “Admissible” does not incorporate the concept of “permanent residence”. 2. The Statelessness Convention does not impose a requirement on contracting parties to grant either permanent residence or citizenship.

25 March 2021 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 1954 Statelessness Convention | Topic(s): Entry / Exit - Residence permits / Residency - Statelessness | Countries: Kuwait - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland