Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA106842014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 19 February 2016
On 17 June 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CLIVE LANE

Between

the Secretary of State for the home department
Appellant
and

rm
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Walker, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr Palmer, instructed by Nag Law Solicitors

DECISION AND REASONS
1. I shall refer in this decision to the appellant as the respondent and the respondent as the appellant (as they appeared respectively before the First-tier Tribunal). The appellant was born in 1977 and is a female citizen of Sri Lanka. By a decision of the respondent dated 20 November 2014, she was refused asylum and it was directed that she should be removed from the United Kingdom. The appellant appealed against that decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Steer) which, in a decision promulgated on 18 December 2015, allowed the appeal on asylum grounds. The Secretary of State now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
2. The grounds of appeal do not dispute the findings of fact made by the judge. The judge found that the appellant was a credible witness [51]. The judge found that,
"? For the above reasons I find that the appellant was arrested in 2002, that her cousin, S, was killed in 2007 and that the appellant was arrested, on suspicion of assisting S, in 2008 and that she was detained in both 2002 and 2008 that she was released unconditionally in 2002, but was released subject to reporting conditions in 2008, that her cousin MG was arrested in 2014 while staying at the appellant's family home and that the appellant remains of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities due to her previous arrests and her membership of the BTF [British Tamil Form] in the UK."
3. The judge went on to find at [52] that,
"The fact that the appellant's cousin was arrested at her family home and remained in detention as at March 2015 and that the appellant is a member of the BTF, I find that the appellant would be at risk of ill-treatment upon return to Sri Lanka now. I find that the appellant has established that she is a refugee."
4. As I have said, those findings of facts are not disputed. However, the Secretary of State challenges the judge's application of those facts to the country guidance of GJ and Others (Post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT 00319 (IAC). The Secretary of State submits that the "facts that a person attends demonstrations and is a member of the BTF is unlikely to attract persecution. There was no evidence that the appellant had played a "significant role" in post-civil war anti-government activity in Sri Lanka or abroad. The respondent submits that it was also unclear why the judge found that the appellant should appear on a "watch list" or, if she did appear on such a list, why there would be the likelihood of ill-treatment. The Sri Lankan government is currently concerned with identifying those who might seek to destabilise the unitary Sri Lankan state or revive internal armed conflict (see GJ at 356). The judge, however, found that the appellant would be at risk of ill-treatment because of her cousin's arrest and detention in March 2015 and because of her own membership of the BTF. Those factors were insufficient to indicate that the appellant would be at risk.
5. I find that the appeal should be dismissed. I have reached that conclusion for the following reasons. I am not satisfied that the judge has misunderstood GJ as the grounds of appeal assert. First, the judge makes a point at [51] of finding the appellant had been released "subject to reporting conditions in 2008". She has breached those conditions, having fled to the United Kingdom. Although not expressly stated by the judge, it clearly follows from the fact that the appellant has breached her reporting conditions that there may exist an arrest warrant or police record which could be acted upon should she return to Sri Lanka. Alternatively, her name may appear on a watch list. It seems reasonably likely that an individual who had broken reporting conditions following a release from detention and who is brought in for questioning because his or her name appears on a watch list, may have to explain why he or she has fled abroad. In addition, quite recently the appellant's cousin had been arrested at the family home and it is clear from [51] that it was the combination of that recent arrest, the appellant's activities with a banned organisation (the BTF) and her own breach of the reporting conditions on her 2008 release from detention, which led the judge to conclude that she would be at real risk on return to Sri Lanka. That particular combination of circumstances may not be expressly set out in the account of risk categories given in GJ but I find that the judge was entitled, following that country guidance and having regard to the background material, to conclude, on the facts as she found them in this appeal, that the appellant would be at risk. I accept that the Sri Lankan authorities are particularly concerned with those who may wish to destabilise the Sri Lankan state or reignite internecine conflict but I do not read GJ as indicating that the authorities are exclusively interested in an individual's campaigning to reignite the civil war. The Sri Lankan authorities would find in the appellant a person who has a personal history of activity in Tamil politics and who has a personal relationship with an individual whom they considered it necessary to arrest as recently as March 2015. In the circumstances, I find that the judge was entitled to reach the conclusions which she did as to risk on return on the basis of the facts as she found them in this appeal.
Notice of Decision
6. This appeal is dismissed.

Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of their family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

Signed Date 30 May 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane