United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/01102/2019

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard at Manchester (via Microsoft Teams) On 24 August 2021	Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 06 October 2021

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON

 

 

Between

 

SNA

( Anonymity direction made)

Appellant

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

 

Representation :

For the Appellant: Mr Bradshaw instructed by JD Spicer Zeb.

For the Respondent: Mr McVeety, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

 

1.                 In a decision promulgated on 24 May 2021 the Upper Tribunal, by agreement between the parties, found an error of law and set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.

2.                 The matter comes back before the Upper Tribunal to enable it to substitute a decision to either allow or dismiss the appeal.

Background

 

3.                   The appellant is a citizen of Iraq born on 2 October 1996.

4.                   The First-tier Tribunal Judges credibility findings, together with those relating to the appellant's identity, ethnicity as an Iraqi Kurd, his immigration history, and the finding he faces a real risk on return to his home area as a member of a Particular Social Group (PSG) - victim of an honour crime in Iraq, the applicable Convention reason, are preserved findings.

5.                   As the appellant is in possession of his CSID and his Iraqi Identity Card no issues arise in relation to documentation in this appeal.

6.                   The core issues are whether there is anywhere in Iraq to which the appellant can relocate geographically and, if so, whether it is reasonable in all circumstances to expect him to go there.

7.                   In his recent witness statement filed for the purposes of this hearing, dated 4 August 2021, the appellant writes:

 

6. I cannot return to Iraq as I still fear persecution in Iraq. I have not had any contact with anyone in Iraq and have not had any contact with my family. If I am returned to Iraq, I know that I will be killed as soon as I return to Iraq. This is because these were the terms of the family agreement. I will either be killed by her family or my family. I cannot internally relocate to somewhere like Baghdad as I will be found. The family have people who they have paid to try and find me and to kill me. The authorities are corrupt and the families will be told as soon as I return to Iraq as they have influence within the authorities. I cannot return and live a life in Iraq as I would face persecution and I would be killed. I live with this fear everyday.

 

Human Rights

 

7. I believe that if l am forced to return to Iraq, this will be a breach of my human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.

8. If I were forced to return to Iraq, this would be a breach of my Article 2 rights under the European Convention of Human Rights, that is the right to life.

9. If I were forced to return to Iraq, this would be a breach of my Article 3 rights under the European Convention of Human Rights, that no one shall be subjected to torture, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. If I am forced to return to Iraq, I will once again be arrested and be punished. It is inevitable that during detention I will once again be subjected to the inhumane and degrading treatment.

10. There is no effective system of justice in Iraq. If I am forced to return to Iraq, this would be a breach of my Articles 5 & 6 rights under the European Convention of Human Rights, that is the right to liberty and security and the right to a fair trial.

11. If I were forced to return to Iraq, this would be a breach of my Article 8 rights under the European Convention of Human Rights, that is the right to a family life.

 

Compassionate Factors

 

12. I have now been in the United Kingdom for over 3 years. For a long time, I have been feeling very stressed and anxious and continue to do so. I now feel safer and more secure in the UK. If I am forced to return to Iraq, I fear that my life is at risk and my health will undoubtedly deteriorate. I therefore seek asylum in the United Kingdom.

 

8.                   An updated psychological report dated 3 August 2021 has been prepared by Peter Thorne BSc (Hons), BPS DipClinPsychol, CPsychol DipCogTher, AFBPsS Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society and a Consultant Clinical Psychologist.

9.                   In the section of the report headed "Clinical Opinion" it is written:

 

37. Clinical Opinion

 

38. Based on his self-reported reported history, clinical screening, and formal assessment, my opinion is that [SMA] continues to meet formal criteria for a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. I assess this as being present to a mild to moderate degree of severity. [SMA] continues to report some symptoms associated with PTSD, such as intrusive memories and some disturbing dreams. He described survivor guilt - a key feature of his condition.

39. I then re-assessed using the full DSM-V 2013 criteria for PTSD (see Appendix B) are as follows.

40. Criterion A: The person was exposed to death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence. (See Appendix C for full details of the criteria for PTSD). (One required).

41. -[SMA] claims he was beaten and threatened by the brother and cousins of his girlfriend [S] when they visited his shop. His injuries required hospital treatment.

42. -The brother and cousins threatened to kill him if he continued to have contact with [S] (the young woman [SMA] claims to have been his girlfriend and later his wife after eloping).

43. - Some time after eloping with [S], he was subsequently contacted urgently by a friend by phone informing him that she had been killed by members of her family. [SMA]'s family had informed them of [S]'s whereabouts. This event hastened [SMA]'s plans to leave Iraq as he believed his life was in danger.

44. Criterion A is satisfied.

45. Criterion B: Intrusion symptoms (one required). He reported that he still has some intrusive mental images. He still has some disturbing dreams.

46. Criterion B is satisfied.

47. Criterion C: Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma (one required). He still suppresses memories, with limited benefit. This is his main coping strategy for managing intrusions.

48. Criterion C is satisfied.

49. Criterion D: Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that are associated with the traumatic event (two required). He still has survivor guilt arising from the fact that he escaped from Iraq, but his wife was killed.

50. Criterion D is satisfied.

51. Criterion E: Alterations in arousal and reactivity that are associated with the traumatic event (two required). He is rarely startled by sudden noises now, but he becomes emotionally reactive when going over what happened to his wife and the threats he fled from.

52. Criterion E is partially satisfied.

53. Criterion F: His symptoms have existed for years now and are therefore chronic in nature.

54. Criterion F is satisfied.

55. Criterion G: His symptoms continue to cause impairment of normal functioning. His mood is mildly to moderately depressed.

56. Criterion G is satisfied.

57. Criterion H: His symptoms are not due to another illness, substance abuse, or medication.

58. Criterion H is satisfied.

59. Based on his self-reported history, clinical screening, and my formal reassessment, my opinion is that [SMA] continues to present with chronic symptoms of PTSD and fulfils formal criteria for the disorder. I believe his condition remains at a mild to moderate degree of severity. He has secondary depression because of past traumatic experiences, particularly linked to survivor guilt, and lack of hope.

60. Instruction (b) What treatment [if any] he requires.

61. The treatment I recommended in my first report dated 04.11.19 still applies, as follows: 'The psychological sequelae following exposure to violence, threatening experiences, or episodes of degrading treatment can be complex and long term. [SMA] seems to have coped largely by suppressing his emotions and memories, but with minimal benefit. The NICE Guidelines (2005) for the treatment of PTSD recommend a phased approach to treatment. The first phase involves stabilisation and symptom management. In [SMA]'s case, I believe achieving stabilisation will be unlikely without securing legal immigration status ... NICE guidance recommends that management of PTSD should involve an evidence-based treatment, such as Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) or Eye-Movement Desensitization & Reprocessing (EMDR) for symptoms of PTSD and co-morbid depression. Medication may also play a part in his recovery but is unlikely to achieve full resolution of his symptoms used alone, without psychological treatment.'

62. So far, he has not received any counselling or therapy for his mental health problems. He has not been treated with appropriate medication.

63. Instruction (c) What his prognosis would be with and without treatment.

64. Continuing uncertainty about his immigration status and the threat of removal are likely to obstruct attempts to resolve his mental health problems. The combination of chronically depressed mood and PTSD symptoms, plus the fear of return to Iraq, continues to place his mental health at risk of further decline. I do not expect his psychological difficulties to resolve easily because of the complexity of survivor guilt arising from his wife's killing. If he was unable to access or engage in treatment, then his condition is likely to deteriorate further over time. I do not believe he will achieve spontaneous resolution of his mental health condition without professional help. If he simply carries on without addressing his underlying survivor guilt, then he is likely to remain vulnerable to depression for the foreseeable future.

65. Instruction (d) What impact his mental health problems have on his ability to participate in an appeal hearing and give evidence.

66. He is fit to give evidence. As at the first assessment, [SMA] was able to recall the major details of past experiences without any apparent difficulty. I remain of the view that in any situation he is likely to perceive as threatening, such as a formal immigration interview or courtroom, emotional arousal and fear could result in cognitive errors and problems with recall of remote events and specific details, such as names or dates. If [SMA] sensed threat or hostility during questioning, he is likely to become anxious and overwhelmed and this could increase cognitive errors and recall difficulties, and to that extent I regard him as a vulnerable witness.

67. lnstruction (e) What steps should be taken to enable him to give evidence.

68. As recommended in my first report, he should be prompted to take breaks to regain composure and focus when upset. His mental state should be checked from time to time to check he is actively engaged in the process. Those representing or supporting him should ensure he fully understands questions put to him and their implications, along with the implications of his replies. These measures should bolster his ability to give evidence and should allow the Tribunal to feel confident that the witness is engaged.

69. Instruction (f) Whether he is at risk of self-harm or suicide.

70. [SMA] reported intrusive suicidal ideas in 2019. He is now of the view that he must live to honour his wife's death. As stated in my first report, prediction of risk of suicide is complex and notoriously difficult, because the factors associated with risk are often volatile and can change rapidly. It remains possible that if he became convinced that all hope was lost, or if he was unable to find ways of reducing feelings of survivor guilt, then in desperation he may begin to think seriously about plans to act on suicidal thoughts. Much would be dictated by [SMA] perception of the availability of safety, or the lack of it. I assess his current risk as low.

71. (a) In the UK: If told he was to be returned, I predict his risk would increase in proportion to the amount of threat he envisaged, offset against any safety assurances he could secure, and any signals of hope he could trust in.

72. (b} During removal: [SMA] continues to experience trauma-related mental health problems of Depression and PTSD, so far untreated. The stress involved in a forced removal is likely to have a serious and negative impact on his• chronic mental health conditions. I remain of the view that if [SMA] was forcibly removed against his will, a worsening of his mental condition is likely to follow. Suicidal risk is likely to remain low for as long as [SMA] can see reason to hope.

73. Instruction (q) How any such risks would be affected by his removal to Iraq.

74. [SMA] re-stated his belief that Iraq is a very dangerous country where his life would be under threat. He is still unable to identify anything that would reassure him in terms of safety. He said he would mistrust any bodies that might be available to him in Iraq. I predict his mental health would be under severe strain. He is likely to experience the negative consequences of extreme stress, such as increased threat-focused thinking, increased depressogenic rumination, and increased anxious thoughts about the future. Such changes to his thought processes are likely to result in him becoming incapacitated by depression and a strengthening of intrusive symptoms of PTSD, such as difficulty sleeping due to nightmares, increased hypervigilance, and avoidance of anything he associates with threat.

75. [SMA] reaffirmed that he would avoid seeking professional help in Iraq as he is convinced this would put him at greater risk. If he was returned, he would focus on survival and escaping from the country again at the earliest opportunity.

76. Instruction (h) Please provide any other opinion you consider relevant.

77. I know that it is my duty to be alert to the possibility of malingering at all times and I take that duty seriously. I am obliged to document any suspicions of malingering in my reports, and I do so when evidence of such becomes apparent. As far as possible I followed guidelines outlined by Easton (2012), Halligan (2003), and Rogers (2008) to be vigilant to the possibility that [SMA] exaggerates or feigns symptoms. I found [SMA]'s account of mental health problems authentic, and in keeping with other traumatised clients I have assessed.

78. His account of symptoms remains consistent with his reported trauma history. His description of current functioning and response to everyday stressors was again reasonable and not exaggerated. With regard to depression and trauma-related anxiety, he again reported difficulties across a range of severity levels. I did not find that he claimed symptoms in an obviously response-biased way. As at our first meeting, he did not describe symptoms, behaviours, or poor functioning at a level of severity out of keeping with his history. He did not report bizarre symptoms, or a level of cognitive or memory impairment that aroused my suspicion or was inconsistent with his presentation. He did not try to convince me of increased suicidal risk or a worsening of PTSD symptoms.

 

10.               The appellant also seeks to rely upon a country expert report dated 30 July 2021 from Dr Fatah, a recognised country expert in relation to Iraq. After setting out the country information and data relating to honour killings Dr Fatah sets out his concluding paragraph in relation to this issue in the following terms:

 

Conclusion

 

196. Honour killings are fairly prevalent in Iraqi Kurdish society, and there is widespread evidence that women are killed due to their being perceived to have dishonoured their family. This occurs throughout the Kurdish autonomous region, though mainly outside of the main cities. While the true number of women who have been killed due to "honour"-related issues is deemed to be much higher than the official statistics, the figures released by the KRG denote that there has been a sharp increase in the number of honour killings inside the IKR since 2019.

197. It is not considered that the authorities are able to provide sufficient protection to victims of honour violence. While there are few organisations that are able to house women at risk of violence, they can only do so with a court order from the judge. Moreover, at least three of the victims mentioned in this section were killed after being released from safehouses.

198. The evidence for male victimhood is less well-founded, but this may be due to issues in collecting data, or the fact that men are more mobile and may be able to escape potential honour killings more easily. I have found some examples of men being targeted in honour crimes. However, it is considered that this is to a lesser extent than women. Where men are targeted, this is usually in addition to the woman being killed.

199. If [SMA] is wanted for an honour killing, it is not likely that he would be afforded sufficient protection from the authorities.

200. The geographical extent of the risk to [SMA] would depend on the ability and motivation of the people he fears. If his family or [S]'s family have political connections or influence, it is plausible that they would be able to use these to attempt to locate and pursue [SMA] with impunity. Outside of the IKR, it is less likely that they would be able to use these connections or influence, as Kurdish communities are sparser outside of the IKR and the disputed territories. However, in these areas, [SMA] would face significant obstacles to integration, if he does not speak Arabic, and is not able to rely on family or social support networks.

 

11.               In relation to the question of internal relocation, it is written:

 

234. As a Kurd from the IKR, [SMA] would not face obstacles to relocation within the IKR. If [SMA] is not able to rely on a support network in the IKR, he may face obstacles to integration in addition to the ability to secure employment and accommodation. If [SMA] is wanted by his or [S]'s family for an honour killing, and they have the motivations and ability to pursue him within the IKR, it is not likely that he would be able to obtain sufficient protection within the IKR

235. Civilians in Baghdad are at risk from both indiscriminate violence and targeted violence. The renaissance of conflict in mid-2014 has recreated the permissive security environment of 2004-2007 where murders were rife, and scores executed on some point of identity or over some grievance. Should [SMA] face targeted violence, it is not considered that safety could be found with any certainty anywhere in Gol territory.

236. [SMA] may face difficulties in his relocation to Iraq-proper due to his position as a Kurd, lack of documentation, lack of family or social network, and limited Arabic skills.

 

12.               Mr McVeety accepted it was not credible to claim on the facts that the appellant could relocate to Baghdad for the reason stated in the report and the country guidance caselaw, and made no submissions arguing it was reasonable for the appellant to relocate elsewhere in Iraq outside the IKR, such as the South, on the facts of this appeal. I agree that is a fair summary of the position with the issue of internal relocation only being relevant in relation to the IKR from where the appellant originates.

13.               In relation to the provision of mental health services Dr Fatah writes:

 

396. The deterioration of Iraq's healthcare system is ultimately leaving Iraqis who are impacted by violence without the support or treatment needed to recover. In addition, the delivery of basic services, including health services, remains weak. The objective evidence shows that counterfeit medicines are widespread in Iraq and it has led to fatalities. This is primarily due to corruption and the use of bribes and the lack of domestically produced medicine. Objective evidence also shows that the Iraqi Ministry of Health is aware of the lack of availability of medicine and the selling of counterfeit medicine in pharmacies and on the streets, and has failed to respond adequately. Despite the on-going operations to cease faulty goods and fake medicines, there has not been enough effort done to stop corruption, which according to the report is the primary reason for the low-quality healthcare in Iraq.

397. Mental healthcare in Iraq is hindered by a lack of professional training, stigmas around sufferers of mental illnesses and a severe lack of capacity. Therapeutic approaches to mental healthcare are uncommon compared to medicating approaches to treatment. This is true of treatments for depression. Counselling appears to be available but extremely limited in Central Iraq. Counselling has not been adequately provided by the state, but rather has been driven by NGOs such as MSF and ICRC. Stigma around mental healthcare persists in Iraqi society and can hinder effective treatment. While some reports have documented a decrease in stigma since ISIS, there are notable obstacles in convincing patients to return for long-term treatment. In addition to the shortage in psychiatrists and psychologists, Iraq is still facing violence and security challenges post-lSIS. Also, people who suffer from mental illness the concept of mental illness are all stigmatised in public perception in Iraq and often receive very negative publicity. According to Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), shame, fear of discovery, fear of being abandoned or ostracised are all frequently mentioned by patients in Iraq. It should also be noted that frontline practitioners believe that the Covid-19 pandemic in Iraq is exacerbating current mental health issues in addition to challenging the capacity of the Iraqi healthcare system

398. Regarding the provision of mental health in the Disputed Territories, this area faces similar challenges to those throughout Iraq. Due to the high levels of conflict here, many health facilities here have been rendered non-functional. Moreover, the objective evidence provides that much of the NGO work here focusing on healthcare and mental healthcare is limited to IDPs. In the IKR, there are only four government mental-health hospitals - one each in Erbil and Duhok, and two in Sulaymaniyah. Here, the majority of the burden of mental healthcare falls on NGOs such as MSF.

399. Data shows that there is a general lack of awareness regarding mental health treatment options and illness among the general population. Also, due to the shortage in medical personnel, and the growing caseload; doctors tend to over-rely on drugs, which are often expensive and hard to find, rather than directing patients towards therapy or counselling. Based on the objective evidence, it is plausible that [SMA] may not receive adequate treatment for any mental health conditions that he may have. Furthermore, he may face stigmatisation within Iraqi society.

400. It should be noted that while there are facilities and drugs available for the treatment of mental health problems in Iraq, as stated in the CPIN, there are significant problems with capacity and availability, as addressed above.

 

14.               The Secretary of State's position set out in a 'speaking note' filed by Mr Tan, another Senior Home Office Presenting Officer, prior to hearing is in the following terms:

 

It is not accepted that any risk posed to the appellant is prevalent across the entirety of the IKR, nor across the rest of Iraq. In relation to the accepted area of risk in Koyasinjaq (IKR) where the appellants family and his wife's family reside, whilst this is situated in Erbil governorate the evidence does not suggest that such a risk exists across the entirety of the governorate.

 

The account of the appellant demonstrates a period of time spent in Hawler/Erbil city prior to leaving the country. The appellant was assisted by a family friend (Mr Anwar) and to a degree by his younger brother. He was able to obtain funds to arrange his exit and arrange for a passport to be issued to him within this period of time, and leave through the airport to Turkey without problems.

 

As set out in the appellant's skeleton argument (para 8) on reflecting upon his evidence, the appellants location in Sulaymaniyah was disclosed by his own family to members of [S]'s family. Whilst the FTTJ found that the appellant was at risk in Sulaymaniyah this is clearly premised on information and direction provided to his pursuers as to his location, rather than them locating him through their own means or network of contacts. It is noted that the account of the appellant is that he was located in Sarchnar (interview Q130), an area of Sulaymaniyah city. It is not accepted that the evidence establishes that the appellant is specifically at risk in Sulaymaniyah city or the governorate as a whole.

 

As reflected in the report of Dr Fatah (para 195), the geographical extent of any risk within the IKR depends on the ability and motivations of the people the appellant fears. Dr Fatah points to political connections or influence as potential avenues to locate the appellant with impunity. It is noted that none of these avenues appear have been used to locate the appellant in Sulaymaniyah, Erbil City, or prevent his accrual of travel documents and exit from IKR. Dr Fatah makes no comment on this point despite it being a matter of relevance in the decision of FTTJ Howarth [32].

 

As to other areas of Iraq, the FTTJ decision and the evidence set out within it does not appear to consider or cover this issue at all. It is anticipated that evidence arising out of cross examination will be supportive of any submissions made on the above points. As noted by Dr Fatah, the level of risk to the appellant is significantly less outside of the IKR.

 

The appellant has benefitted from significant assistance not only from his younger brother, his friend in Sulaimaniyah, but also Mr Anwar. The Tribunal will have to take in to account why these useful sources of support would not be of benefit in the future either directly or remotely within the IKR or in Iraq.

 

The appellant is educated and has previously worked in the IKR. The appellant has retained his CSID [B51-53], and his Iraqi Nationality Certificate (INC) [B54-55]. It is not clear how the appellant obtained his INC (issued 07/12/15) at a time when the appellant was in Europe. Nevertheless, documentation and it's requirement to assist the return of the appellant is not considered to be an issue; it is somewhat unclear why Dr Fatah refers to lack of documentation as an issue (para 236).

 

In relation to his medical condition, it is noted that the conclusion of Mr Thorne is predominantly informed by the appellant and without sight of any medical records beyond the report of Dr Arnold. In concluding that the appellant suffers from a depressive episode and PTSD, and would benefit from counselling and anti-depressant medication it is wholly unclear why the appellant having been diagnosed as such in 2019, has not sought to take up an appropriate course of treatment despite referring to support systems in the UK which could assist with access. It is noted that the appellant is registered with a GP [B37] yet has not considered it appropriate to disclose his medical records. Whilst mental health treatment is available in Iraq at a lower level than in the UK, it is available nonetheless. It is not accepted that relocation is unduly harsh or unreasonable in light of the above points.

 

15.               The appellant in his oral evidence confirmed that after the death of his wife he stayed with his friend and that friend is likely to be willing and able to accommodate him if he is returned to Iraq; but claimed he did not think that his friend will be able to provide support for him long term.

16.               It is right that the family in Iraq, despite the appellant's claim that they wish to kill him, were unable to track him down when he was in Erbil for the period of time in which he was able to apply for a visa to enable him travel to Turkey and an Iraqi passport which, if an A Passport, would have required him to provide biometric details unless the same were already held digitally by the authorities in Iraq. No evidence has been provided to show this would have been a quick process, especially in the light of the history of Iraqi bureaucracy.

17.               The chronology of events accepted by the First-tier Tribunal is summarised in the Reasons for Refusal letter in the following terms:

 

•          Your father is an administrator in the Department of Agriculture.

•          In March 2013 you met SBA and you started a relationship.

•          A year later SBA's brother saw your contact details on a mobile phone you had bought her. Unknown dates, SBA's brother, who was a policeman, started threatening you. On the third occasion on 6 June 2014 SBA's brother and cousin came and fought you.

•          He reported this to the local police on 6 June 2014, but they told you it was a tribal matter, and they will not interfere.

•          On 2 June 2015 you and SBA ran away to Sulaimaniyah.

•          On 20 August 2015 you had a religious wedding ceremony.

•          Six days after the wedding ceremony, SBA was killed by her family in Sulaimaniyah. SBA's family had visited your family before this and told them that they should kill you. You believe your family told SBA's family that you were located in Sulaimaniyah.

18.               The first issue to be identified is the actual area in which the appellant has been found to face a credible real risk of harm. It is not disputed that this will be his home town of Koya Sanjaq in Erbil province which is located to the east of Erbil City at approximately 73 km or 45 miles distance. It was not made out that despite the killing of SBA and indications that her family believed the appellant's family should kill him, that any effort was made to locate him or that SBA or his family were able to locate him whilst he stayed at his friend's house in Erbil and was able to engage with the authorities to seek documentation and leave the country through the international airport.

19.               The distance between Sulaimaniyah and Koya is approximately 115 km or 72 miles. The appellant's home area lies to the north-west of this Kurdish city.

20.               It also appears to be the case on the evidence that although the appellant and SBA ran away on 5 June 2015 to Sulaimaniyah SBA's family were only able to find them after they had been tipped off by the appellant's own family as to their location.

21.               Dr Fatah referred to the ability of SBA's family to find the appellant in the IKR being dependent upon their motivations and ability to pursue him within the IKR. That is accepted.

22.               Notwithstanding the evidence of SBA's brother being in the police force, past family peshmerga membership, and the appellant's father's employment in the Ministry of Agriculture, the evidence does not support a finding it has been made out that the power and reach of the prospective agents of persecution is such that the appellant will face a real risk of discovery and harm outside his home area. Their power and/or influence within Iraq and the IKR has not been shown to be as the appellant alleges it to be.

23.               The next issue to be considered is whether relocation within the IKR away from the appellant's immediate home area is reasonable in all the circumstances.

24.               It is for the appellant to make good the assertion that, notwithstanding the general conditions in the proposed place of relocation, it would not be reasonable to relocate there.

25.               In VNM v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 47 the Court of Appeal said that the reasonableness of relocation would require consideration of the practicability of an appellant settling elsewhere.

26.               It is not suggested that conditions in the place of intended relocation could not be unreasonable or unduly harsh unless they were liable to infringe an applicant's rights under article 3 or its equivalent, as that was found to be an incorrect approach in AH (Sudan) [2007] UKHL 49.

27.               The view of the UNHCR before the Court in AH (Sudan) was that " . . . the correct approach when considering the reasonableness of IRA [internal relocation alternative] is to assess all the circumstances of the individual's case holistically and with specific reference to the individual's personal circumstances (including past persecution or fear thereof, psychological and health condition, family and social situation, and survival capacities). This assessment is to be made in the context of the conditions in the place of relocation (including basic human rights, security conditions, socio-economic conditions, accommodation, access to health care facilities), in order to determine the impact on that individual of settling in the proposed place of relocation and whether the individual could live a relatively normal life without undue hardship."

28.               As found above, is accepted by the appellant that if he is returned to Erbil his friend is likely to be able to provide him with accommodation and meet his needs, at least in the short term.

29.               In relation to the reasonableness of any further stay one relevant issue is the appellant's subjective fear of harm, which is also referred to in the medical evidence as being a potential barrier to the appellant seeking medical assistance for his psychological needs due to a belief that this would expose him to a real risk of harm. In Dragas (Tribunal) 01/TH/0724 (Ockelton) the Tribunal found, in effect, that subjective fear may be a relevant factor when considering undue harshness. That was also the view of the House of Lords in AH Sudan [2007] UKHL 49.

30.               The report from Dr Fatah refers to the limitations on the available services in Iraq but does not support a finding that such services are not available or not accessible to those who seek them. The issue of stigma is noted but that is not a matter that the appellant has placed great weight on in this appeal. It was not made out that if the appellant sought the assistance of the medical authorities, including NGOs such as MSF that there is a credible risk of this fact or his identity being discovered by family members or anybody who would wish to do him harm. The appellant's stance of avoiding seeking treatment due to a subjective fear related to a matter not objectively made out on the evidence.

31.               I find the appellant has, despite accepted difficulties, not made out he will not be able to safely and securely availing himself of the albeit limited assistance in dealing with his psychological needs including, over time, the underlying survivor's guilt identified in the medical report. I do not find the appellant has established an entitlement to a grant of leave on medical grounds having considered the criteria set out in AM (Zimbabwe) [2020] UKSC 17.

32.               The comments in relation to suicide are noted but it is not made out the appellant will not receive suitable treatment if this issue arises in the United Kingdom, both prior to and during removal, or that there is an objectively established real risk of harm on return to Iraq such as to give rise to real risk of suicide, or that adequate medical facilities would not be available and accessible within Iraq to assist the appellant if required.

33.               It is also relevant to the health issues that the appellant has not sought assistance with his mental health since his initial diagnosis as noted by Mr Thorne in the updated report, despite being in the UK where no subjective fear of harm should he choose to do so could credibly arise. Mr McVeety submitted it was not made out that if returned to Iraq the situation will be any different from that in the United Kingdom so far as his seeking assistance is concerned. Whilst that may be so, it is relevant to have considered whether such assistance is available and accessible, which I find it is should the appellant change his mind.

34.               In relation to the practicability of settling elsewhere, in his screening interview the appellant confirmed he had been educated to a higher level and had obtained a Diploma in Computing. The appellant stated he started the course in 2014 and traded in a shop he opened in 2010 of which he became the sole owner in 2013. The appellant stated he had run the business for approximately 5 years. The appellant therefore has experience in commerce and retail as well as a recognised qualification and it was not made out that he could not secure employment and generate the level of income that he will need to enable him to meet his reasonable costs of living, including accommodation if his friend was not able to assist him any longer.

35.               As noted above, the burden of establishing that a place of relocation is unreasonable falls upon the appellant. Whilst it is understood in light of the findings of the First-tier Tribunal that the appellant may have a subjective belief that he faces a real risk on return and that he will not be able to safely relocate anywhere within Iraq, he has failed to establish, even to the lower standard applicable to an appeal of this nature, that that is the case. It may be difficult for him, and it may take time, but the evidence does not establish it is appropriate in the circumstances of this appeal for me to make a finding that internal relocation will be unreasonable in all the circumstances. It was not made out when all the circumstances of the case are considered holistically, including his personal circumstances in the context of the conditions in the place of relocation, that the impact on the appellant of settling in the IKR away from his home area is such that he will not be able to live a relatively normal life without undue hardship.

Decision

 

36.               I dismiss the appeal.

 

Anonymity.

 

37.               The First-tier Tribunal made an order pursuant to rule 45(4)(i) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005.

 

I make such order pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.

 

Signed.......................................................

Upper Tribunal Judge Hanson

Dated 13 September 2021