Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001858

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/62084/2025
LP/02267/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 16 September 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SEELHOFF

Between

LJ
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: In Person
For the Respondent: Ms Lewley, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 29 August 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 is a national of Sri Lanka who claimed asylum on the 28th of May 2022. The Appellant’s application was refused on the 20th November 2023. An appeal came before the tribunal on the 3rd of January 2025.
2. In a decision dated the 5th March 2025 the Judge dismissed the appeal finding that the Appellant’s account of his experiences in Sri Lanka was untrue, and that his political activities in the UK were not of a level which would attract adverse interest on return to Sri Lanka.
3. The Appellant sought permission to appeal out of time. The grounds drafted by Mr Paramjorthy of Counsel focus on the assessment of the sur-place activities. It is said in essence that the tribunal had failed to recognise that the author of a supporting letter confirming the Appellant’s activities was a representative of the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelan (TGTE), who had been found credible as a witness in the leading case of KK ( sur place activities: risk) Sri Lanka [2021] UKUT 0130. It is then complained that the test set out in KK for the purposes of assessing the Appellant’s sur place activities had not been applied.
4. Permission to appeal was granted on the 24th April 2025 and the matter came before me.

The Hearing
5. The Appellant was unrepresented before me. An interpreter had been provided and he confirmed that he wished to rely on Mr Paramjorthy’s grounds and that he had nothing to add.
6. Ms Lewley for the Respondent relied on the Rule 24 response dated the 30th April 2025.
7. At the end of the submissions I indicated that I was satisfied that there was an error of law and suggested that I could remake the decision immediately as there were no findings of fact required there having been no challenge to the activities the Appellant claimed to have carried out in the UK nor to a supporting letter relied on. Ms Lewley confirmed that she would be able to address me on this if I allowed her time to prepare submissions. I adjourned the case briefly to allow her to do so.
8. When we resumed Ms Lewley addressed me on the issue of the sur place activities. The Appellant did not want to say anything and I reserved my decision.

Findings on Error of Law
9. Following the guidance in KK, the judge in assessing risk on return needed to identify that the Appellant does not have a current passport, that he would therefore be interviewed by the Sri Lankan authorities prior to being issued a travel document (para 9 headnote to KK), and that, in accordance with para 10 of the headnote to KK, the Sri Lankan government would be reasonably likely to have information on the extent of his political activities in the UK once they had reached a certain level. Further the judge needed to be aware that in accordance with paragraph 15 of the headnote to KK the Appellant would be likely to be further questioned on return to Sri Lanka. In that context the Judge needed to consider the guidance at paragraph 21 of the headnote to KK in assessing whether the Appellant had a “significant role” in diaspora activities which could expose him to risk on return;
“(21) The term “significant role” does not require an individual to show that they have held a formal position in an organisation, are a member of such, or that their activities have been “high profile” or “prominent”. The assessment of their profile will always be fact-specific, but will be informed by an indicator-based approach, taking into account the following non-exhaustive factors, none of which will in general be determinative:

i. the nature of any diaspora organisation on behalf of which an individual has been active. That an organisation has been proscribed under the 2012 UN Regulations will be relatively significant in terms of the level of adverse interest reasonably likely to be attributed to an individual associated with it;
ii. the type of activities undertaken;
iii. the extent of any activities;
iv. the duration of any activities;
v. any relevant history in Sri Lanka;
vi. any relevant familial connections.
10. It is apparent from the decision [29] that the Judge did not recognise that Dr Sockalingam Yogalingam was an MP from the TGTE, nor that he was treated as a reliable witness in KK.
11. Consequentially, the Judge did not identify that the Appellant’s activities were associated with the TGTE which is an organisation that KK confirms has been banned by the Sri Lankan government (para 6 headnote to KK). As is apparent from paragraph 21 of KK the first question the judge needed to ask themselves about the Appellant’s activities in the UK was which organisations was he associated with. It is of particular concern that the Judge proceeded on the basis that the Appellant was apparently not associated with “a particular organisation” [30] despite the supporting letter.
12. Next the judge was required to give consideration to the Appellant’s activities for that organisation. The judge makes reference to one activity (a cycle rally) but does not give a holistic assessment of the activities described by Dr Sockalingam as;
“He joined as a volunteer and volunteered in public events in the UK, in support of creating a free Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka. He attends meetings, events and public demonstrations.
… (he) is very committed and dedicated to the Tamil Freedom Struggle and he has participated in the following activities of TGTE, for example; Participated for “Maaveerar Naal – Tamil Heros Day” in Excel, Participated for “Protest against Sri Lanka’s 76th Independence Day – Black Day for Tamils” from Sir Lankan High commission to Westminster Square, Cycle rally from Westminster to Geneva for “Genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka” and many more.” (sic)
13. The judge did not identify all the activities listed above, nor the fact that it was not presented as an exhaustive list given the reference to “many more”.
14. The judge does not consider the duration of the activities in the UK and whilst no start date is given, the Appellant’s membership card was issued in November 2023. If that represented the start of his activities then it would represent considerable activities in a short period of time, and even if he was active before then it would represent significant involvement.
15. Last I note that the judge held that the Appellant was not at risk because;
“There is nothing to indicate that he has been involved in the organisation of the demonstrations or that he has had any high profile role.” [30]
16. First, the Judge needed to consider what was meant by “volunteering” at events rather than merely attending them. Second the Judge has failed to apply paragraph 21 of KK when assessing what is a “significant role”.
17. Accordingly I am satisfied that the Judge failed to give adequate reasons for concluding that the Appellant’s sur place activities would not expose him to risk on return and I set aside the findings on that issue [29, 30 and part of 31].

Remaking the Decision
18. My starting point in remaking the decision is the guidance in KK and the five questions.
19. In terms of question (i) the Appellant’s activities have been with the TGTE and organisation which has been banned by the Sri Lankan government and which is viewed with considerable suspicion. There is no suggestion that the Appellant’s activities for this organisation represent anything other than his genuine political beliefs which one might reasonably expect many Tamils from Sri Lanka to hold.
20. In respect of question (ii and iii) and in reliance on the letter of Dr Sockalingam, whilst the Appellant does not hold a formal role within the TGTE, he is clearly a regular volunteer, and attends both the meetings and public events, and has attended enough events that only a summary of those events was provided by Dr Sockalingam. That indicates regular and committed activities in support of the TGTE.
21. Question (iv) focuses on the period of time over which an individual has been active. As noted above the membership card was issued in November 2023. If the activities were all carried out after that date it would suggest that the Appellant has been very active which would have drawn further attention to him.
22. In respect of (v) and (vi) I note that it has not been accepted that the Appellant has any relevant history in Sri Lanka nor that he has any relevant family connections.
23. Having taken into account the above factors I note in particular that paragraph 6 of the headnote to KK confirms in respect of the TGTE;
“It is viewed by GoSL with a significant degree of hostility and is perceived as a “front” for the LTTE.”
24. I find that it is reasonably likely that the government of Sri Lanka would be aware of the Appellant’s activities for the TGTE in light of paragraph 10 of the headnote to KK. If the Appellant were to seek a travel document to return to Sri Lanka the embassy staff will question him about it prior to issuing a travel document. It is clear from KK that the Appellant is likely to be further questioned by the authorities on his return to Sri Lanka. Whilst the Appellant does not hold a formal role in the TGTE, I find that it is reasonably likely that the Appellant will be perceived as having played a significant role in Tamil Separatism and consequently in light of KK it is reasonably likely he would face persecution on return to Sri Lanka due to those activities.

Notice of Decision
25. The Decision of the First-tier tribunal contains material errors of law in the consideration of the Appellant’s sur place activities.
26. Associated findings at paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of the decision are set aside and the remainder of the findings are preserved.
27. The appeal is allowed on asylum grounds.

Adrian Seelhoff

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

5th September 2025