Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Appeal Number: UI-2024-005331
First-tier Number PA/57132/2023
LP/00705/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 5 February 2025

25th April 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHANA

Between

VISHWA ANURUDDA SAMARAKOON
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr A Slatter of Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms S Kuna, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 5 February 2025

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a Sri Lankan national born on 19 November 1979. The respondent refused his claim for asylum and humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom and in a decision by Judge Alis dated 17 September 2024 refused to grant the appellant’s asylum, humanitarian protection and pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

2. Judge Alis dismissed the appellant’s appeal. Permission to appeal was at first refused by First-tier Tribunal Judge Connal on 4 November 2024 but subsequently permission was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge RJ Owens in a decision dated 9 December 2024. It was found that it “is at least arguable that the Judge failed to take into account the appellant’s evidence in his statement as well as background evidence in relation to the discrimination he would face in Sri Lanka and failed to make any findings of the aspect of his claim when assessing whether there were very significant obstacles to integration”. The renewed grounds are ground 1 and 3 which are arguable. The ground 2 is no longer relied upon in respect of the protection claim.

3. The First-tier Tribunal Judge Alis considered the following issues at the hearing. The appellant’s credibility in respect of his claim that he was in a relationship with a married woman and her husband who was in the army threatened to kill him. The second strand is that owing to the contacts of her husband has in the security forces, he could use them against the appellant. The third strand is that the appellant has been gifted a family property and his brother and brother-in-law what that property and have issued threats against him. The fourth strand is that the appellant has mental health problems and experienced some suicidal ideation. He would face discrimination in Sri Lanka and there would be very significant obstacles facing him in that country. The appellant has established a significant private life in the United Kingdom as he has been here for 13 years. The Judge considered all the evidence in this appeal and dismissed the appellant’s appeal on all grounds.

3. At the hearing I heard submissions from both parties. Mr Slatter continued to rely on ground one and ground three of the initial grounds of appeal dated 1 October 2024. That was namely that the Judge failed to consider and/or take sufficient account of the appellant’s evidence when assessing whether there would be very significant obstacles under paragraph 276 ADE (vi) to the appellant’s integration into Sri Lanka. Ground two of the initial grounds was not pursued which related to protection

4. Essentially the appellant argues that the Judge failed to take into account subjective and objective evidence in respect of his integration into Sri Lanka in respect of paragraph 276 ADE and the very significant obstacles that the appellant will face on his return to Sri Lanka which includes his mental health problems, suicidal ideation, discrimination as the appellant belongs to a lower cast and failure to take into account the appellant’s circumstances in respect of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

5. The Judge began his findings by stating that he has considered all the evidence in the round before reaching my findings. The Judge has considered all the facts in this appeal and made many credibility findings against the appellant, including his late asylum claim and made adverse credibility finding in respect of section 8 of the 2004 act as he claimed asylum until 2022 despite his claim that the threats commenced before he came to the United Kingdom.

6. The hearing Judge’s assessment in respect of paragraph 276 ADE is at paragraph 47 of the decision which it was argued on behalf of the appellant, that it is “so brief as to be incomplete”. Brevity is not an arguable ground of appeal as long as the Judge has considered all the evidence in this appeal, in the round. The Judge clearly stated at paragraph 27 that he has made his findings “ having taken account of the evidence as a whole”. The Judge took into account this guidance and considered the appellant’s evidence against it. The Judge stated that the onus is on the appellant to demonstrate that he “would be unable to establish a private life in the country of return, or the establish a private life in the country of return would entail very serious hardship for the applicant.

7. The Judge stated that the appellant has to show very significant obstacles to his integration into Iraq. The Judge stated that he had had regard to the respondent’s guidance as to what amounts to very significant obstacles. It stated that it was “very significant obstacles to integration means something that would prevent or seriously inhibit the applicant from integrating into the country of return. You are looking for more than the usual obstacles which may arise relocation (such as the need to learn a new language obtain employment). You’re looking to see whether there are very significant obstacles which is a high threshold. Very significant obstacles with exist with the applicant demonstrates that they would be unable to establish a private life in the country of return, already establishing a private life in the country of return would entail very serious hardship for the applicant”.

8. The Judge took into account in respect of the appellant mental health, that he is not currently under the care of a specialist or taking medication. The Judge was entitled to find that the medical evidence does not support the appellant’s claim of his mental health because if his mental health was as he claims that it is, there would have been some medical intervention.

9. The Judge considered the WhatsApp messages from the appellant to his medical practice in Hounslow which concerned the appellant having reported thoughts of suicide to the medical authorities. The appellant’s witness statement dated 27 April 2022 he confirmed his history of suicidal thoughts and that he had previously attempted to take his own life by an overdose. Therefore, the Judge’s failure to specifically mention suicidal ideation did not affect his analysis on the issue of integration under paragraph 276 ADE of the immigration rules. It is also said that the Judge did not take into account the extensive objective evidence filed in support of the appellant’s case.

10. The Judge specifically stated that he has taken into account all the evidence in this appeal, which includes objective evidence. It was also mentioned that he has considered the documents placed before him in accordance with the principles set out in Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKAIT 00439.

11. It was also argued that the issue of societal discrimination against the appellant on the basis of his lower cast was also a relevant issue in determining the difficulty of the appellant adapting to life in Sri Lanka, was not taken into account by the Judge. That is no reason to suggest that the Judge did not take into account the objective evidence, even if he has not specifically referred to it, chapter and verse, in his decsion. The Judge was aware that that is one of the issues in the appeal. There was a failure to take into account objective evidence of societal discrimination that Shelley longer remains a society governed by cast which was not addressed by the Judge. There was no consideration given that the Judge to the files objective evidence confirming the widespread breakdown of the economy and public services in Sri Lanka. These matters were not considered by the Judge. The Judge has not given adequate assessment of the subjective and objective evidence relevant to the issue of integration. The Judge failed to carry out the broad evaluative Judgement required as per SS HDv Kamara [2016] E WCA Civ 813 to determine whether the appellant would have a reasonable opportunity to operate on Sheila good society on a day-to-day basis.

12. The Judge applied the right test at paragraph 41 of his decision that it is on the appellant to demonstrate that he “would be unable to establish a private life in the country of return, or if establishing a private life in the country of return would entail very serious hardship for the applicant.” The Judge found that clearly the appellant had not established it. The Judge found that there was evidence of him working as a volunteer at the Mulberry Centre and there was evidence of unsuccessfully seeking employment as a care assistant. This demonstrated to the Judge that the appellant has the ability to seek employment and volunteer which shows that the appellant is a functioning individual and will be able to integrate into Sri Lanka. The Judge also said that the appellant speaks the language and has maintained contact with his sister. He also considered that the appellant worked for six years in Sri Lanka before he came to the United Kingdom. I find that the Judge has given thoughtful and complete reasoning on the evidence before This shows that the appellant was functional even though he claimed to have mental health problems while he was in Sri Lanka.

13. The Judge found that the appellant can return to his family and would be able to survive on his own. He stated “the medical evidence contained in the bundle was of limited assistance, it dated back to 20 did to an end the messages between himself of the surgery there is reference to headaches, lack of sleep and bad thoughts and on 2220 22, he was prescribed medication to help him sleep. The Judge found that that is the sum total of the medical evidence before him.

14. In respect of Article 8, the Judge considered the appellant circumstances and the respondent’s interest for his balance sheet approach of proportionality.

15. The Judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and found that the appellant Does not meet the requirements of the immigration rules, has been here unlawfully since 2011 and that the appellant has consulted a doctor about medical issues but is not currently under the specialist or in receipt of prescribed medication. The appellant’s immigration status has always been precarious. We considered the appellant has done voluntary work and relies on others for income that he maintains contact with his family in Sri Lanka.

16. He found that the factors raised by the appellant do not outweigh the public interest. Having had regard to section 117B of the 2002 Act and the principles that the maintenance of immigration control is in the public interest.

17. I do not accept the argument put forward by the appellant’s Counsel that the Judge did not consider all the evidence in the round and failed to make sustainable findings on the evidence. The reading of the decision, in the round, makes it clear that the Judge took into account all the evidence including the medical evidence and came to a sustainable conclusion as far as it relates to the appellant claim for asylum and humanitarian protection which is not the subject of appeal, and I find that the grounds of appeal are more of a disagreement with findings of the Judge and there is no material error of law.

18. I therefore find that the Judge’s findings under Article 8 are sustainable and without material error.

Notice of Decision

I find that there is no material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge Alis and I dismiss the appeal.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 24 April 2025

suretachana
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

I have dismissed the appeal and therefore there can be no fee award.

Signed Date 24 April 2025

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal