Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000965

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/59689/2023
LP/10127/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 1st of July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LOUGHRAN
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BARTLETT

Between

B.A.P.
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Paramjothy
For the Respondent: Mr Tufan

Heard at Field House on 25 June 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant made an initial claim for asylum on 2 October 2015 which was refused by the respondent on 8 February 2018. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal who dismissed his appeal in a determination promulgated on 17 May 2018. The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal who dismissed his appeal on 15 August 2018. The appellant made further submissions on 11 October 2022 which the respondent refused on 21 October 2023. The appellant appealed that decision to the First-tier Tribunal and all the appellant’s claims were dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal in a determination dated 9 December 2024 (the 2024 Determination).
2. Permission to appeal was granted by the Upper Tribunal in a decision dated 23 April 2024.
3. The grounds of appeal set out three grounds of appeal which can be summarised as follows:
a. ground one - the judge made an error of law in her assessment of the medical evidence namely a report by Dr Al-Wakeel;
b. ground two - the judge placed some weight on evidence that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the appellant but failed to assess the risk of return to the appellant in light of GJ and others (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT 00319 (IAC) and its guidance on those against whom there is an outstanding arrest warrant;
c. ground three - the judge found that the respondent was under a duty to verify court documents but failed to address that the duty was not properly discharged.
Decision
4. At the outset of the hearing we asked for clarification from Mr Tufan as to the respondent’s position on the appeal rights because the body of the decision letter stated that Appellant’s submissions did not amount to a fresh claim, but the following page informed the Appellant that he did have a right of appeal that he did not have to leave the UK until such an appeal had been decided.
5. Mr Tufan confirmed that it was the Respondent’s position that the Appellant’s further submissions had been accepted as a fresh claim and accordingly, he had been afforded an in country right of appeal.
Ground two
6. The task facing the First-tier Tribunal judge was complex because the appeal involved many different issues particularly in light of the 17 May 2018 Determination and the applicability of Devaseelan (Second Appeals - ECHR - Extra-Territorial Effect) Sri Lanka * [2002] IAT 00702 to this case. The 2024 Determination was largely methodical and detailed.
7. However, we have found force in the second ground of appeal. The 2024 Determination sets out that the judge gave [para 44] “some, albeit limited, weight”, [para 39] “limited weight” and para 49 “some weight” to the arrest warrant. It is clear that she was seeking to apply the guidance in Tanveer Ahmed (Documents unreliable and forged) Pakistan * [2002] UKIAT 00439 and for that she cannot be criticised.
8. At paragraph 45 the judge sets out “he has not in my view done enough to show there are very good reasons to depart from Judge Freer’s finding that the appellant’s account of leasing the car to YN and being detained and tortured as a result and lacked credibility.”
9. At paragraph 49 the judge also considers whether it is reasonably likely the appellant would be at risk on return and concluded “I am not persuaded it is reasonably likely the appellant would be at risk on return.”. However, it is unclear from this judgement if the Judge rejects or accepts the appellant’s claim that there is a live arrest warrant in respect of him issued by the Sri Lankan authorities. A Determination is required to set out findings on the core issues. Given the country guidance case of GJ and others (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT 00319 (IAC), we consider that in a case where it is asserted that there is a live arrest warrant in respect of the appellant, the Determination must make clear if it is proceeding on the basis that there is or is not a live arrest warrant against the appellant in Sri Lanka. If there is, the factors set out in GJ and others (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT 00319 (IAC) must be fully considered.
10. The 2024 Determination does not set out if the in country risk has been assessed in light of no arrest warrant or in light of an arrest warrant existing. We recognise that the judge may not have been assisted by the decision letter, respondent’s review and the respondent’s submissions which may not have clearly identified if the respondent accepts or disputes if there is a live arrest warrant against the appellant in Sri Lanka. It is to be expected that the respondent will make her position clear when this case is reheard.
11. For the above reason, we find that there was a material error of law. We considered that due to the factual issues in dispute between the parties, this case is to be remitted for a de novo hearing before the First-tier Tribunal.
Grounds one and three
12. As a result of our findings in respect of grounds two we have not considered these grounds in detail however these grounds would appear to lack merit.
Notice of Decision
The Decision of the First Tier Tribunal dated 9 December 2024 contains an error of law and is remitted for a de novo hearing to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard by any judge except Judge Shakespeare.

J Bartlett

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

27 June 2025