Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002353

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/02085/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 4th of November 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BURNS

Between

YA
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation
For the Appellant: In Person
For the Respondent: Mr Lawson, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 20 October 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
Introduction
1. The Appellant is a national of Sri Lanka. He arrived in the United Kingdom on 3 September 2022, and he is recorded as claiming asylum on 13 October 2022 although he said that he made initial enquiries with the Home Office on about 20 September 2022. The claim was refused by the Respondent for reasons set out in a decision dated 17 April 2024. The Appellant's appeal against that decision was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal (“FtT) Judge Codd (“the Judge”) for reasons set out in a decision dated 12 March 2025 (“the Decision”).
2. The Appellant was refused permission to appeal by the FtT on 30 April 2025. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted on 30 June 2025 by Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds.
3. The page references are to the Composite Bundle which was filed by the Appellant in advance of the hearing before me.

THE BACKGROUND
4. The Appellant had applied for protection on his own behalf and on behalf of his wife. He says that on 5 January 2022 he was arrested and questioned in connection with the Easter bombings which took place in Sri Lanka on 21 April 2019. He says that he was released only on the payment of a substantial bribe and was subject to reporting conditions. He left Sri Lanka for the United Kingdom on 2 September 2022 and an arrest warrant was issued thereafter on 15 September 2022. He says that the police have attended his family home in Sri Lanka, and he fears persecution if returned to Sri Lanka.

The Grounds of Appeal
5. The grounds of appeal are lengthy and were drafted by the Appellant as a litigant in person. The grant of permission to appeal was not limited.
6. In summary the grounds of appeal assert that
(a) The Judge was biased against the Appellant from the outset,
(b) The Judge should have reached a different conclusion about the similarity between the Wikipedia entry about the Easter bombings and the police report,
(c) The arrest warrant was not issued until after the Appellant left Sri Lanka which the Judge failed to appreciate,

(d) The Judge failed to explain why the evidence from a qualified Sri Lankan attorney should be rejected,
(e) The Judge failed to consider the documents which contained details of the requirement for the Appellant to report, namely the bond (page 173 and 174) and documents from the court proceedings (page 169),
(f) The arrest warrant is a properly certified copy, and an original is never issued.

PERMISSION TO APPEAL
7. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds by Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds. He found that it was arguable that the Judge erred in law in his assessment of the documentary evidence. Specifically, whether the Judge failed to appreciate that the documentary evidence provided by the Appellant purportedly showed that he was released on bail conditions, which is contrary to the finding at paragraph [32] of the decision. He also found it was arguable that the Appellant produced documents which were stamped and therefore were arguably original documents contrary to the findings at paragraph [ 40].

RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE UNDER Rule 24
8. The Respondent’s response can be summarised as follows
(a) The Judge refers only to the arrest warrant at paragraph [32] (and not the other documents) and properly finds that it does not reference a requirement to report,
(b) The Respondent acknowledges that the documents are stamped but asserts that the Judge has considered them in the round and explained why they lack credibility,
(c) The Respondent asserts that the Judge made adverse credibility findings which were not solely reliant on his assessment of the documents.

THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL
9. The matter came before me to decide whether the Decision contains an error of law. If I conclude that it does, I must then decide whether to set it aside in consequence, either in whole or in part. If I do so, I must then either remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal or re-make the decision in this Tribunal.
10. I find that there are three main grounds of appeal and therefore three main issues for me to consider.
11. Firstly, and most significantly is whether the Judge erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasoning for his assessment of the documentary evidence particularly because the documents were said to have been sent by a lawyer in Sri Lanka who purports to be a member of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (and cites his Bar Association Credentials).
12. The second issue is the treatment of the document referred to as “At Chief Magistrate’s Court of Colombo Case No : B 0362/2020) has an entry that there is an order to release the Appellant ”on a Bond subject to reporting conditions” (see page 168 and 169). The issue is whether the Judge considered this in his assessment of the documentary evidence.
13. The third issue is whether in fact original stamped documents were produced.

The Hearing of the Appeal
14. The Appellant represented himself. He used the court appointed interpreter only when he had difficulty expressing himself in English. He did not require any adjustments to aid his participation despite his claimed mental health problems (which he first reported in his screening interview at page 365). He provided a copy of his skeleton argument which he said he had filed last week, and which Mr Lawson had not seen.
15. Mr Lawson conceded the appeal. He said that the FtT had erred in law by failing to make adequate findings about the fact that the documentary evidence was said to have been obtained by a lawyer in Sri Lanka. He said that the decision did not refer to this at all.

Analysis
16. I accept the concession made by Mr Lawson on behalf of the Respondent. This concession is what I described as the main and first issue in the appeal at paragraph [11] above.
17. I find that the Judge erred in law in his consideration of the documentary evidence as follows.
18. The Judge did not make any findings on the letter which appeared at page 160. This is a letter which is said to be from Mr Perera (Attorney-at-law) which purports to include a Bar Association identity card. It refers to how the certified copies and translations of court documents and arrest warrant were obtained. Although the Judge makes findings about inconsistencies he says were evident in the documents, see for example paragraph [29] he does not say what he has made of the letter which is said to be from the Appellant’s lawyer. I agree with Mr Lawson that the documentary evidence was such a fundamental aspect of the Appellant’s case that the subsequent adverse credibility findings cannot safely stand with this omission. The adverse credibility findings are founded on a rejection of the documentary evidence but there is no finding about what the Judge made of the Appellant’s claim that the documents he relies on came from his lawyer in Sri Lanka.
19. Further I found that the Judge erred in law on what I describe as the second issue. The Judge found at paragraph [32] that “the contents of the arrest warrant on the 15th September 2022 does not accord with his narrative that he was released on bail…No reference is made to his need to report to a police station or the surety provided”. These findings are contrary to the contents of the document which is translated from page 167. This reads at page 169 that the Appellant’s Detention Order was cancelled and that he was to be released “on a Bond subjected to reporting conditions”. The Judge erred in law by making findings which are contrary to the written evidence.
20. The Judge found at paragraph [40] that the arrest warrant was a copy document and so not credible. The Appellant had said that originals were never issued but certified copies only. What is produced from page 164 onwards appear to be issued with a stamp (see for example the warrant of arrest at page 185). The Judge’s findings that the documents were not originals appears contrary to the written documents which were in the bundle before him. He thus erred in law in relation to this third issue.
21. The Judge concludes that the documentary evidence produced by the Appellant that he is wanted in Sri Lanka lacks credibility (see for example paragraph 41) but as I have found above insufficient findings were made with regard to the lawyer’s letter, the reporting conditions and the “stamps” on the document.
22. It is not necessary for me to deal with all of the matters raised in the Grounds of Appeal save that raised at paragraph [4]. The Appellant asserts that the Judge was “highly prejudiced in his approach”. I find that there is no merit in this ground whatsoever. The Appellant did not develop this ground of appeal before me. I am satisfied that the Judge did his utmost to facilitate the Appellant’s participation in the appeal (given his lack of legal representation) – see for example paragraph [13] of the decision. This Ground is not made out.
23. The Judge erred in law in his analysis of the documentary evidence as set out above and so for that reason the decision must be set aside.
24. In accordance with the Practice Statements of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal dated 11 June 2018 paragraph 7 I find that the appeal should not be retained for further hearing in the Upper Tribunal. I find there will need to be a complete rehearing wherein the Judge will make findings about the credibility of the Appellant’s account (paragraph 7.2.(b)) and given the nature and extent of the fact finding the appeal should therefore be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
25. I did consider whether to preserve any of the findings made by the Judge. For example, at paragraph [38] the Judge found that the Appellant had been detained by the Authorities prior to leaving Sri Lanka. The Judge found that this aspect of the evidence was consistent and therefore credible. I canvassed this with the parties. The Appellant did not have a particular view about this. Mr Lawson submitted that the credibility assessment of the documentary evidence was so flawed that this would undermine the Judge’s reasoning on all aspect of his credibility assessment.
26. I determine that no facts should be preserved. This will enable the new Tribunal to make a full assessment on the credibility of the Appellant’s account on full consideration of the oral and documentary evidence.

Notice of Decision
The decision of FtT Judge Codd was made in error of law. The decision is set aside in its entirety. None of the findings of fact shall stand. The appeal is returned to the First-tier Tribunal to be reconsidered afresh by a judge other than FtT Judge Codd in accordance with the following Directions.

DIRECTIONS
1. The Appeal is returned to the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Birmingham to be heard on the first available date.
2. HMCTS will arrange for a Sinhalese interpreter at the final hearing in the First-tier Tribunal.
3. These Directions may be supplemented by later Directions made by a Judge or Legal Officer of the First-tier Tribunal.

C Burns
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Burns

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

21 October 2025