Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002821

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/60234/2023
LP/01095/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 12th of September 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SEELHOFF

Between

NN
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Maqsood, Counsel instructed by Chancery Solicitors
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. The Appellant claimed asylum on the 18th June 2019 and that application was refused on the 24th October 2023. The Appellant appealed and his appeal came before the First-tier Tribunal on the 8th May 2025 and was dismissed in a decision dated the 12th May 2025.
2. In the decision the Judge held that the Appellant’s account was not credible and dismissed it accordingly.
3. The Appellant applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on three grounds which essentially amount to assertions that;
i. Inadequate reasons were given by the judge for refusing to place weight on legal documents from Sri Lanka.
ii. The judge had placed too much weight on the fact that said documents had been produced late and had not considered the explanations offered for the late production.
iii. The Judge had placed excessive weight on a Screening Interview Record.
4. Permission to appeal was granted by a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal on the 26th June 2025 noting that;
“The Judge’s decision is brief and the findings about the Appellant’s credibility are confined to a single paragraph (at [12]).”
5. The matter came before me for hearing.
The Hearing
6. Before me Counsel for the Appellant expanded on the grounds. Ms Lewley relied on a rule 24 response dated the 2nd July 2025 and argued that the decision was sustainable.
7. At the end of the hearing I indicated that I was satisfied that the decision contained material errors of law and asked the parties how I could most appropriately dispose of the appeal. Given that I had set the credibility findings aside entirely for the decision to be remade afresh the parties both agreed that it should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
Findings
8. As noted in the grant of permission to appeal the decision is very short with the credibility findings being confined to a single paragraph which reads;
“I have not found the appellant’s evidence to be credible. He was inconsistent about the dates of the issues which he experienced in Sri Lanka, whether in 2006 and/or 2009 and / or 2010. He confirmed that he was not a LTTE supporter or member, and the incident in 2010 arose out of accommodating his employee, Gopi. He had not previously mentioned the arrest warrants from March/April 2011, which have been unofficially translated, and did not mention these in interview. He obtained these documents last week though his father and a Sri Lankan lawyer. He delayed making his claim for asylum until 2019, which goes to his credibility under Section 8 of the 2004 Act. I do not accept the validity of the alleged summonses, partly because they were not raised at an earlier date, but also they were issued a year or more after the alleged incident (s) in Sri Lanka, and have only been sent to him now. There is no evidence about any sur place activities in the UK. For these reasons I conclude that he is not at risk on return to Sri Lanka.”
9. In reaching decisions on credibility it is incumbent on judges to consider the relevant evidence on the principle contentious issues in a case. It is not necessary to address every single piece of evidence but relevant evidence on specific contentious issues should be addressed.
10. There is overlap between grounds 1 and 2 as they essentially both go to the treatment of the documents.
11. The judge did not take into account a number of relevant factors when assessing whether to attach weight to the documents including;
i. An express concession in the Respondent’s decision that the Appellant had provided “a consistent detailed account of his claim in regard to your accusation of aiding and supporting an LTTE member”.
ii. The fact that the judge described the translations as “unofficially translated” when they were stamped by a translator who had listed his qualifications.
iii. The fact that no inconsistencies were identified in the apparently official documents from Sri Lanka.
iv. The fact that the Appellant may not have mentioned these specific documents at his Asylum interview but did mention that the police were interested in him by that stage implying that there were ongoing proceedings (Screening Interview 4.1 and AI Q59).
v. The Appellant’s statement of the 1st July 2024 (prepared a year before the hearing) at paragraphs 19, 27 and 33 in which he disclosed the existence of the arrest warrant and the difficulties he was having getting hold of the documents when he was not in Sri Lanka himself.
vi. The Appellant’s statement of the 6th May 2025 where he explained how and when he had got the documents (para 4 and 12).
12. Whilst it could in theory have been open to the judge to consider and reject this evidence, there is nothing in the decision to suggest that any of these factors have been considered. It is of particular concern that the Judge attached adverse weight to the documents being obtained “last week” without any express consideration of the explanations given as to why they were not available sooner.
13. I find in respect of ground 1 and 2 that there are errors of law due to a failure to consider all the evidence and a failure to give adequate reasons for rejecting the Appellant’s credibility on a core issue and in respect of the documents. Another judge taking all this evidence into account in respect of the documents could have reached a different decision on credibility.
14. In respect of ground 3 the Respondent says that the screening interview was relied on consistently with the approach in YL (Rely on SEF) China [2004] UKAIT 00145. The key words from YL are;
“However, it has to be remembered that a screening interview is not done to establish in detail the reasons a person gives to support her claim for asylum. It would not normally be appropriate for the Secretary of State to ask supplementary questions or to entertain elaborate answers and an inaccurate summary by an interviewing officer at that stage would be excusable. Further the screening interview may well be conducted when the asylum seeker is tired after a long journey. These things have to be considered when any inconsistencies between the screening interview and the later case are evaluated.”
15. There is nothing in the wording of paragraph 12 of the decision to suggest that the Judge was cautious in his approach to the Screening Interview. Indeed paragraph 12 does not even mention that some of the discrepant answers relied on by the Judge were given in the screening interview. I find that the Judge also erred in his approach to this issue.
16. In light of the above, I am satisfied that the Judge made material error(s) of law and the decision promulgated on 12th May 2025 shall be set aside, with no findings of fact preserved. As considered above, it is also appropriate that the matter be sent back to the First-tier for re-making, to be heard by a different judge as the decision has been set aside in its entirety.
Notice of Decision
17. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 16th January 2025 contained material errors of law and is set aside.
18. The appeal is to be remitted back to the First Tier Tribunal for remaking afresh before a different judge.

Adrian Seelhoff

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

5th September 2025