Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/00527/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at: Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On: 24th January 2017
On: 25th January 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE

Between

DU
(Anonymity direction made)
Appellant
And

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

For the Appellant: Ms Wass, Counsel instructed by Kanaga Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr McVeety, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a national of Sri Lanka born on the 4th June 1996.
Anonymity Order
2. This is a claim for international protection. Having had regard to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 and the Presidential Guidance Note No 1 of 2013: Anonymity Orders. I make an order in the following terms:
"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 his family. This direction applies to, amongst others, both the Appellant and the Respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings"
Background and Matters in Issue
3. The Appellant asserts a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka for reasons of his imputed political opinion. In summary the account is that the Appellant left Sri Lanka because the army in his local district were trying to forcibly recruit him. When he resisted, this was perceived as being "against the country". He was threatened that he had to join the military otherwise he would be shot, prosecuted or otherwise subjected to serious harm. Since the Appellant arrived in the United Kingdom, his case had developed. That is because he was now wanted in Sri Lanka for having supplied funds to a former LTTE cadre, by the name KR.
4. The account was rejected by the Respondent, and then by the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Wedderspoon), which dismissed his appeal by way of decision dated the 31st October 2016.
5. The Appellant now has permission to appeal on the grounds that the determination is flawed for the following material errors of law:
i) Failure to take material evidence into account
ii) The Tribunal erred in attaching "little weight to evidence based on unreasonable observations"
My Findings
6. It is alleged that the First-tier Tribunal erred in failing to take material evidence into account. There are two limbs to this ground of appeal. It is first alleged that in reaching its decision the First-tier Tribunal entirely omitted to address key items of corroborative evidence. Second, it is submitted that in conducting its risk analysis, the Tribunal failed to take relevant country background material into account. I deal first with the corroborative materials.
7. The Appellant had produced a letter dated 2nd September 2016 from Attorney-at-Law Dambure Liyanage Chaminda Kithsiri. This document is printed on headed notepaper containing contact details, and is signed and stamped by Mr Kithsiri. The letter is detailed but in essence confirms that Mr Kithsiri has made enquiries with the police in Kilinochchi about a case brought against the Appellant. These enquiries led Mr Kithsiri to Kilinochchi Magistrates Court. Mr Kithsiri was told by a police officer that enquiries are continuing into the Appellant and a "rehabilitated LTTE member Kanthasamy Ratheeskumar", those enquiries now being led by the Special Branch. Mr Kithsiri further confirms that he has personally attended the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka along with the Appellant's father and assisted him in lodging a complaint there.
8. The Appellant further relied on a witness statement of a man named RS, who claims to be the brother of RK. The witness statement details, inter alia, how the Appellant has been taking part in political activities in the diaspora, how RS himself was arrested upon landing in Colombo in August 2016 and accused of helping the Appellant raise funds for the LTTE. RS asserts that during questioning by the Terrorist Investigation Division he was shown photographs of the Appellant taken covertly when he was attending protests in the United Kingdom.
9. At pages 72-80 of the Appellant's bundle there is a letter from the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka acknowledging that a complaint has been lodged.
10. None of the three documents summarised above feature in the risk analysis conducted by Judge Wedderspoon. There are a number of other documents in the file which are similarly ignored. Before me Mr McVeety agreed that these documents were plainly relevant to the matters in hand and that the failure to address this evidence was an omission grave enough to warrant an immediate remittal to the First-tier Tribunal for the matter to be re-heard.
11. The second limb of this ground related to the failure to have any regard to the current country background material, or indeed the extant country guidance given in GJ and Others (post-civil war; returnees) [2013] UKUT 319 (IAC): although the case is fleetingly mentioned it is apparent from the findings that no regard was had to its contents. Mr McVeety agreed that this too must be an error.
12. It follows that I need not deal with the remaining ground. The parties are in agreement that the decision should be set aside and the matter remitted for proper findings of fact to be made by the First-tier Tribunal.
Decisions
13. The determination of the First-tier Tribunal contains errors of law such that it is set aside.
14. The decision in the appeal will be remade in the First-tier Tribunal.
15. There is an order for anonymity.

Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
24th January 2017