IA/07209/2021

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/52091/2021
IA/07209/2021 (UI-2022-000148)


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at : Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On the 16 May 2022
On the 20 June 2022



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE


Between

DOMINIC RAJANIKANTH MASILAMANI
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms T Srindran, instructed by Shan and Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Z Young, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a citizen of Sri Lanka of Tamil ethnicity, born on 2 June 1979. He arrived in the UK on 24 April 2014 on a spouse visa valid until 3 November 2016.

2. Following the expiry of his leave and following the refusal of a subsequent application for leave to remain on family and private life grounds, the appellant claimed asylum, on 17 February 2020. His claim was refused on 14 April 2021.The respondent did not accept his claim and did not consider him to be at risk on return to Sri Lanka.

3. The appellant appealed against that decision and his appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Sweet on 10 January 2022. The judge did not accept the appellant’s claim to be at risk on return to Sri Lanka. He considered that the appellant’s activities in the UK were of a low-level and did not meet the test in KK and RS (Sur place activities, risk) Sri Lanka (CG) [2021] UKUT 130 . He accordingly dismissed the appeal.

4. The appellant sought, and was granted, permission to appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal and the matter came before me.

5. At the hearing it came to light that the respondent had conceded the matter in a rule 24 response dated 15 March 2021. The respondent accepted that Judge Sweet had erred in law by making findings on the appellant’s sur place activities which were inconsistent with the guidance in KK and RS and by giving inadequate reasons for his conclusions. A request was made for the case to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo.

6. Ms Young relied upon the rule 24 response and both parties agreed that the matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal, without the need for a detailed decision being made.

7. In the circumstances I set aside the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Sweet and remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to be considered afresh by a different judge.

DECISION

8. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law and the decision is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal pursuant to section 12(2)(b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Practice Statement 7.2(b), to be heard before any judge aside from Judge Sweet.




Signed: S Kebede Dated: 16 May 2022
Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede