(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/01000/2019
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at the Royal Courts of Justice
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 11 November 2019
On 22 November 2019
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS
K P V
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
For the Appellant: Ms I Srihanan or counsel instructed by M Vasuki & C0, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr S Kotas Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 I make an order prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the Appellant. Breach of this order can be punished as a contempt of court. I make this order because the Appellant is an asylum seeker and publicity could cause him harm.
2. This is an appeal by a citizen of Sri Lanka against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal to dismiss his appeal against a decision of the Respondent refusing him international protection and/or leave to remain on human rights grounds.
3. The Appellant claims to have been a low level supporter of Tamil separatism. He worked as a mechanic for the LTTE.
4. He says that he has been ill-treated, that the Sri Lankan authorities continue to look for him and that he has been an active supporter of pro-Tamil independence in the United Kingdom.
5. The First-tier Tribunal disbelieved much of his evidence.
6. Permission was granted because it was arguable that the First-tier Tribunal had not made lawful findings concerning the scarring on the Appellant's back which tended to support his contention that he had been ill-treated and that his evidence that the authorities in Sri Lanka continued to be interested in his whereabouts was disbelieved without adequate regard for the evidence that the Appellant is, or may be, a poor historian because he suffers from PTSD.
7. At paragraph 30 of the Decision and Reasons the Judge said:
"The scarring report (at p.6) refers to the fact that the injuries were not self-inflicted, but caused by being burnt with the heated iron rod during his detention. It is said the scares are typical of events described by the claimant of being intentionally burnt. I reject that."
As far as I can see no reason, still less any adequate reason, was given for rejecting that prima facia credible expert evidence.
8. This omission is clearly an error of law.
9. Ill-treatment in the past does not mean that the Appellant is presently a refugee. He is only a refugee if there is a present risk but his evidence that he is at risk needs to be appraised having proper regard to the evidence that he has been tortured and the evidence that he cannot necessarily remembers accurately because of PTSD.
10. Similarly his involvement in sur place activities has to be assessed with regard to how they might be perceived in Sri Lanka rather than how sincerely they are practised.
11. I do not know if the Appellant will give evidence when the case is reheard but he must be given that chance.
Notice of Decision
12. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law. I set aside its decision and I direct that the appeal be heard again in the First-tier Tribunal.
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Dated 19 November 2019