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

A black background with a black square Description automatically generated with medium confidence

 

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER	Case No: UI-2025-000062
	First-tier Tribunal No: PA/63395/2023

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

 

On 25 ^th of March 2025

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GREY

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SEELHOFF

 

Between

 

TS

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation :

For the Appellant: Mr Moriarty, Counsel instructed by York Solicitors

For the Respondent: Ms McKenzie, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

Heard at Field House on 10 March 2025

 

Order Regarding Anonymity

 

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity.

 

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .

DECISION AND REASONS

1.              The Appellant is a citizen of Sri Lanka. On 2 ^nd January 2025 a First-tier Tribunal Judge granted permission to appeal against a decision of another First-tier Tribunal Judge (the Judge) dated 25 ^th October 2024 dismissing the Appellant's appeal against the refusal of his asylum claim.

The Background

2.              The Appellant is an ethnic Tamil who fears persecution on return having been accused of raising funds for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Judge dismissed the appeal finding that the Appellant was not credible.

Grounds of Appeal and Response

3.              Permission was sought and granted on three core grounds summarised in the grant of permission as the Judge;

                                                              i.       Failed to engage with the Appellant's oral evidence and give any adequate reasons as to why the appellant was considered not to be a credible witness.

                                                            ii.       Gave reasons that were flawed and/or unreasonable in rejecting the credibility of the Appellant's account.

                                                          iii.       Conducted an inadequate assessment of risk on return.

4.              There was no rule 24 response.

The Hearing

5.              Before us Ms McKenzie for the Respondent conceded that the grounds 2 and 3 were made out but maintained that ground 1 was not. Accordingly we invited Mr Moriarty to address us on the outstanding issue. Ms McKenzie responded. We then indicated that we were satisfied that all 3 grounds were made out but that written reasons would follow.

6.              We discussed how the matter should be disposed of and the parties both agreed that the matter should be remitted to the First-tier to be heard again with no findings preserved.

Decision

7.              In respect of ground 1 we remind ourselves that it was not necessary for the Judge to address each and every piece of evidence before them in the written decision, but it remains necessary to address the principle contentious issues in any appeal. In this appeal credibility was the key issue. The Respondent's decision set out a number of reasons for not believing the Appellant's account.

8.              The Appellant in response provided a witness statement which addresses the Respondent's reasons for refusal in turn and offers explanations. The Appellant then adopted that witness statement before the Judge and was asked further questions. The Judge acknowledges that he had that statement before him [6].

9.              In writing his decision the Judge purports to summarise the Appellant's evidence [7] and refers in turn to his screening interview and asylum interview [11] when making his findings. The Judge however makes no reference at any point in the decision to the contents of the witness statement adopted at the hearing or the oral evidence before him, including when repeating and adopting the Respondent's reasons for refusing the appeal. This creates an unavoidable impression that key evidence on the central credibility issues has been disregarded. We agree with Mr Moriarty's submission that this appears to be a decision which could have been written on the papers with no oral evidence at all.

10.          The Appellant is entitled to have his evidence considered in the round and to understand why his evidence has not been accepted. It is reasonable to consider that on reading the decision the Appellant would believe that his evidence had not been considered, either adequately or at all. Further, it is reasonable to conclude that if evidence had been considered and rejected, the appellant would not understand why that was so. We find that ground 1 is established.

11.          We do not propose to address grounds 2 and 3 in particular detail given Ms Mckenzie's concessions save that we note that in respect of ground 2 it inevitably entails an acceptance that the credibility findings made by the Judge were unsound for;

                                                              i.       Drawing adverse inferences from the Appellant's failure to provide evidence and information he had not in fact been asked to provide.

                                                            ii.       Finding the account implausible in respect of aspects of the case where the skeleton argument contained specific references to similar behaviour by the Sri Lankan authorities in other cases.

                                                          iii.       Failing to consider specific answers given in oral evidence relevant to adverse credibility findings.

12.          We consider that grounds 1 and 2 being made out are enough for us to set aside the decision in full.

13.          The basis of ground 3 was that the judge had failed to consider country guidance decisions when assessing risk on return and it is correct to note that KK and RS (Sur place activities: risk) Sri Lanka CG [2021] UKUT 130 (IAC) is not cited or considered in the decision.

14.           We have considered paragraph 7.2 (b) of the Practice Statements of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal and the principles in Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC). We are of the view, supported by the submissions of the parties, that the nature and extent of the fact-finding required is such that remittal for a de novo hearing is the appropriate course of action and that to do otherwise would deny the Appellant the benefit of the two stage appeal process.

Notice of Decision

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of material errors on a point of law and is set aside with no findings preserved.

The remaking of the decision in the appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal at Taylor House, to be remade afresh and heard by any judge other than Judge Abebrese.

 

A. Seelhoff

 

Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber

18 ^th of March 2025