Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-004318
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/57867/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 2 August 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’BRIEN

Between

NJ
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Miss K Renfrew of Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms S Simbi, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 18 May 2026

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 appeals against the respondent’s decision dated 20 September 2023 to refuse his protection and human rights claim. That claim was based on his political opinion: as a supporter of Tamil separatism.

2. The appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal in a decision dated 27 July 2025. However, that decision was set aside by Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Wilson in a decision dated 6 March 2026, albeit only in relation to the appellant’s sur place activities and the assessment of consequential risk. The error of law decision is annexed below.

3. Judge Wilson expressly preserved the First-tier Tribunal’s credibility findings at [17]-[27] of its decision as well as its findings that the appellant had failed to establish that he held genuine political motivation but instead that he had undertaken his sur place activities cynically.

4. It is my task to remake the First-tier Tribunal’s decision in accordance with those preserved facts.

5. It was agreed that the appellant did not need to be tendered for cross-examination. The fact of his attendance at a number of political events was adequately established by annotated photographs in the combined bundle, and it was a preserved fact that he had attended cynically and without any genuine belief in the political objectives of those events. Instead, the representatives made oral submissions, referring where necessary to the combined bundle (a 457-pp pdf).

6. Whilst I refer below only to such matters as necessary to understand my decision, I took those submissions and the evidence to which they referred into account in their entirety.

7. The photographs establish that the appellant has attended the following events:

a. ’Heroes Day’, 2022;
b. ‘Mullivaikal’ commemorative event in Whitehall (said to be 10 Downing Street, but appearing rather to be the opposite side of Whitehall outside MoD Main Building) on 18 May 2022;
c. Sri Lankan ‘Independence Day’, 4 February 2023;
d. Sri Lankan ‘Independence Day’, 4 February 2024, outside the Sri Lankan High Commission;
e. ‘Mullivaikkal’ commemorative event in Trafalgar Square on 18 May 2024;
f. ‘Black July’ commemorative event in Parliament Square on 23 July 2024;
g. ’Heroes Day’, 27 November 2024;
h. ‘Black July’ commemorative event in Parliament Square on 23 July 2024;
i. ‘Mullivaikkal’ commemorative event in Trafalgar Square on 18 May 2025.

8. In most of the photographs, the appellant is holding a Tamil Eelam flag, holding political placards overtly critical of the Government of Sri Lanka and/or standing behind large banners of a similar nature.

9. The appellant does not have a valid passport and so will be interviewed by the Sri Lankan authorities for the purposes of obtaining an emergency travel document. He will be asked at this interview about his political activities in the United Kingdom.

10. The relevant country guidance for assessing the risk arising from political activity in support of Tamil separatism is given in KK and RS (Sur place activities: risk) Sri Lanka [2021] UKUT 0130. In her most recent CPIN, ‘Sri Lanka: Tamil separatism’, v9.0 published in August 2025, the respondent accepts that there are not strong grounds supported by cogent evidence to depart from KK and RS.

11. The guidance given in KK & RS at [536] relevant to this appeal is:

‘(1) The current Government of Sri Lanka (“GoSL”) is an authoritarian regime whose core focus is to prevent any potential resurgence of a separatist movement within Sri Lanka which has as its ultimate goal the establishment of Tamil Eelam.

(2) GoSL draws no material distinction between, on the one hand, the avowedly violent means of the LTTE in furtherance of Tamil Eelam, and non-violent political advocacy for that result on the other. It is the underlying aim which is crucial to GoSL’s perception. To this extent, GoSL’s interpretation of separatism is not limited to the pursuance thereof by violent means alone; it encompasses the political sphere as well.

(3) Whilst there is limited space for pro-Tamil political organisations to operate within Sri Lanka, there is no tolerance of the expression of avowedly separatist or perceived separatist beliefs.

(4) GoSL views the Tamil diaspora with a generally adverse mindset, but does not regard the entire cohort as either holding separatist views or being politically active in any meaningful way.

(5) Sur place activities on behalf of an organisation proscribed under the 2012 UN Regulations is a relatively significant risk factor in the assessment of an individual’s profile, although its existence or absence is not determinative of risk. Proscription will entail a higher degree of adverse interest in an organisation and, by extension, in individuals known or perceived to be associated with it…

(6) The Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (“TGTE”) is an avowedly separatist organisation which is currently proscribed. It is viewed by GoSL with a significant degree of hostility and is perceived as a “front” for the LTTE…

(8) GoSL continues to operate an extensive intelligence-gathering regime in the United Kingdom which utilises information acquired through the infiltration of diaspora organisations, the photographing and videoing of demonstrations, and the monitoring of the Internet and unencrypted social media. At the initial stage of monitoring and information gathering, it is reasonably likely that the Sri Lankan authorities will wish to gather more rather than less information on organisations in which there is an adverse interest and individuals connected thereto. Information gathering has, so far as possible, kept pace with developments in communication technology.

(9) Interviews at the Sri Lankan High Commission in London (“SLHC”) continue to take place for those requiring a Temporary Travel Document (“TTD”).

(10) Prior to the return of an individual traveling on a TTD, GoSL is reasonably likely to have obtained information on the following matters:

i. whether the individual is associated in any way with a particular diaspora organisation;
ii. whether they have attended meetings and/or demonstrations and if so, at least approximately how frequently this has occurred;
iii. the nature of involvement in these events, such as, for example, whether they played a prominent part or have been holding flags or banners displaying the LTTE emblem;
iv. any organisational and/or promotional roles (formal or otherwise) undertaken on behalf of a diaspora organisation;
v. attendance at commemorative events such as Heroes Day;
vi. meaningful fundraising on behalf of or the provision of such funding to an organisation;
vii. authorship of, or appearance in, articles, whether published in print or online;
viii. any presence on social media;
ix. any political lobbying on behalf of an organisation;
x. the signing of petitions perceived as being anti-government.

…

(12) Whichever form of documentation is in place, it will be for the judge in any given case to determine what activities the individual has actually undertaken and make clear findings on what the authorities are reasonably likely to have become aware of prior to return.

(13) GoSL operates a general electronic database which stores all relevant information held on an individual, whether this has been obtained from the United Kingdom or from within Sri Lanka itself. This database is accessible at the SLHC, BIA and anywhere else within Sri Lanka. Its contents will in general determine the immediate or short-term consequences for a returnee.

(14) A stop list and watch list are still in use. These are derived from the general electronic database.

(15) Those being returned on a TTD will be questioned on arrival at BIA. Additional questioning over and above the confirmation of identity is only reasonably likely to occur where the individual is already on either the stop list or the watch list.

…

(17) Returnees who have no entry on the general database, or whose entry is not such as to have placed them on either the stop list or the watch list, will in general be able to pass through the airport unhindered and return to the home area without being subject to any further action by the authorities (subject to an application of the HJ (Iran) principle).

(18) Only those against whom there is an extant arrest warrant and/or a court order will appear on the stop list. Returnees falling within this category will be detained at the airport.

(19) Returnees who appear on the watch list will fall into one of two sub-categories: (i) those who, because of their existing profile, are deemed to be of sufficiently strong adverse interest to warrant detention once the individual has travelled back to their home area or some other place of resettlement; and (ii) those who are of interest, not at a level sufficient to justify detention at that point in time, but will be monitored by the authorities in their home area or wherever else they may be able to resettle.

(20) In respect of those falling within sub-category (i), the question of whether an individual has, or is perceived to have, undertaken a “significant role” in Tamil separatism remains the appropriate touchstone. In making this evaluative judgment, GoSL will seek to identify those whom it perceives as constituting a threat to the integrity of the Sri Lankan state by reason of their committed activism in furtherance of the establishment of Tamil Eelam.

(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.

(22) The monitoring undertaken by the authorities in respect of returnees in sub-category (ii) in (19), above, will not, in general, amount to persecution or ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.

…

(27) There is a reasonable likelihood that those detained by the Sri Lankan authorities will be subjected to persecutory treatment within the meaning of the Refugee Convention and ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.’

12. The appellant has attended at least 9 significant commemorative events over the past 4 years organised by the TGTE. Heroes Day and Mullivaikkal were described by Professor Gunaratna in his evidence in KK & RS as ‘apex events’, attracting particular attention from the Government of Sri Lanka. I do not doubt that similar scrutiny is given to Tamil demonstrations on ‘Black July Day’ and Independence Day. He is reasonably likely to have been observed, photographed and videoed by agents of the state at those events.

13. The appellant has regularly held a Tamil Elam flag at these events, and has held or stood behind banners criticising the Sri Lankan Government.

14. The respondent’s CPIN, ‘Sri Lanka: Tamil separatism’, published in August 2025 includes reports that 9 ethnic Tamils were arrested in Batticaloa between 25 and 27 November 2023 under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for commemorating those who died in the 1983-2009 civil war (para 10.3.2). It further quotes a report from the Tamil Guardian dated 4 December 2024 of a statement to Parliament given by the Public Security Minister after that year’s Maaveerar Naal celebrations at 10 of which Tamil Eelam flag and/or images related to the LTTE were displayed. According the report, the Minister ‘…acknowledged the right of people to hold ceremonies to honour their deceased relatives, [but] said that displaying LTTE symbols remains illegal.’ The same report said although there is no formal ban on the Tamil Eelam flag, ‘… it is seen as an LTTE symbol by the Sri Lankan state.’ (paragraph 10.3.6).

15. The appellant will be interviewed in order to obtain an emergency travel document. He will be challenged with what the authorities know about his sur place activities. This is reasonably likely to include at least some and perhaps all of the above attendances at commemorative events, and is reasonably likely to include his holding the Tamil Ealam flag and anti-government placards. The respondent accepts that he could not reasonably be expected to deny his involvement in the face of photographic and/or video and/or informer evidence. The authorities will be unconcerned by the appellant’s insistence that the activities were insincere.

16. It is reasonably likely therefore that the appellant will be placed on the watch list. Furthermore, I find it reasonably likely that he would be considered to have played a significant role in separatist activities by virtue of the type of events he attended, the organisers of those events, the number of events (even if only 9), the period over which he has attended them, and the items he displayed at those events. I find it reasonably likely that the appellant will be detained for questioning after his return and so would thereby suffer Article 3 mistreatment amounting to persecution on the grounds of perceived political opinion (as well as on the grounds of ethnicity).

17. For these reasons, irrespective of the appellant’s lack of genuine belief in Tamil separatism and notwithstanding that his sur place activities were opportunistic, his appeal succeeds on asylum grounds and Article 3 grounds.

Notice of Decision

1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law and is set aside,
2. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is remade and the appeal is allowed on asylum grounds and on human rights (Article 3) grounds.

Sean O’Brien

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

28 July 2026
Annex

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-004318

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/57867/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

…………………………………
Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WILSON

Between

N J

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Bandegani (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr Hulme (Senior Presenting Officer)

Heard at Field House on 3 December 2025

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction

18. The Appellant appeals against the decision of a First-tier Tribunal Judge (‘the Judge’) dated 27 July 2025 dismissing his appeal against the Respondent’s decision dated 20 September 2023 to refuse his protection claim.

Grounds of Appeal

19. I summarise the grounds as follows:

a. Ground 1 –the Judge treated the Appellant’s motivation for his sur place activity as determinative of risk contrary to the country guidance in KK and RS (Sri Lanka) CG [2021] UKUT 130 (IAC);

b. Ground 2 - the Judge failed to make adequate findings of fact and properly apply the country guidance of KK and RS when he assessed risk, to include monitoring by the Sri Lankan authorities and the TTD application process.

Permission to Appeal

20. In a decision dated 16 September 2025, the First tier Tribunal granted Permission to appeal on both grounds.

The Response

21. The Respondent filed and served a Rule 24 response dated 23 September 2025 opposing the appeal and submitting that the decision does not disclose any material error of law.

22. In relation to Ground 1, the Respondent accepts that the Judge’s findings [32] are contrary to KK and RS [494] which held that the Sri Lankan authorities “will have little or no inclination to enquire into an individual's good faith or lack thereof”. However, the Respondent submits this is immaterial. It was appropriate for the Judge to consider the genuineness of the Appellant’s beliefs within the context of the HJ (Iran) principle. The Upper Tribunal undertook this exercise in KK and RS [542 & 551]. However, KK and RS can be distinguished as the appellant in that appeal had engaged in sur place activities due to genuine political beliefs which was relevant to the assessment of risk upon return. Whereas in the current appeal the Judge made clear findings as to the lack of genuine political opinion held by the Appellant

23. In relation to Ground 2, the Respondent submits that the Judge properly assessed risk on return [30] in accordance with the risk matrix set out at KK and RS [headnote [21]. The Judge found that the Appellant did not hold a prominent position within the diaspora movement, photographs of demonstrations had not been circulated online, the Appellant had not been present at demonstrations for a significant period; had only attended a small number of events and did not hold a genuine political belief. These findings place the appellant well below the threshold at which adverse interest from the Sri Lankan authorities might arise. Consequently any error in consideration of the Sri Lankan authorities approach to cynical sur place activity is immaterial because the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that he has become of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. It is accepted that the Judge did not address “the issue of the passport in much detail”. However, the Judge had clear regard to KK and RS on this issue [30]. The Respondent accepts that upon return the Appellant would likely to be questioned by the authorities. However, it is submitted that given the Judge’s findings [30] the Appellant would not be at risk. Given the Judge’s finding that the Appellant does not hold genuine political beliefs, there was no requirement for the Judge to engage with the question of how the Appellant would be perceived upon return. In the alternative, the lack of genuine political beliefs would mean that the Appellant would not engage in any political activities in Sri Lanka. It is accepted that if interviewed by the authorities upon return the Appellant would have to tell the truth. However, the Appellant would not have to conceal his political beliefs because he has none. Accordingly, the Appellant would not be at risk upon return.

Appellant’s Submissions

24. Mr Bandegani relied upon the Grounds of appeal. Mr Bandegani’s oral submissions reflected the grounds of appeal, where appropriate he developed or highlighted relevant themes.

25. Mr Bandegani submitted that the Judge’s decision is legally defective because it is infected by his finding that the Appellant’s sur place activities were cynical. He argued that this finding influenced the subsequent assessment of risk, resulting in an analysis contrary to KK and RS.

26. Mr Bandegani submitted that the Judge failed to apply the full country guidance, relying instead on partial and incomplete extracts. He asserted that the judge had not engaged with headnote 4. He noted that the Judge quoted headnote 5 but omitted key wording explaining that activity on behalf of a proscribed organisations or a non-proscribed organisations with a separatist agenda attracts a higher degree of adverse interest. The Judge had not considered that TGTE is perceived as a front for the LTTE. He stated that headnote (8) was quoted incompletely, with its “second sentence” omitted; headnote (9) and (10)—both central to risk analysis—were not addressed at all. Mr Bandegani submitted that the Judge mistakenly treated the guidance as a conjunctive checklist, whereas the proper application requires assessing two fundamental factors. Firstly, is the activity in relation to a proscribed/separatist organisation. Secondly, is there adverse interest arising from association with such groups.

27. He argued that the Judge failed to identify or give weight to evidence showing the appellant’s association with TGTE, including his membership card, a supporting letter, attendance at meetings, attendance at multiple demonstrations, and the use of flags, banners and LTTE/TGTE emblems. He submitted that the Judge recognised attendance at Heroes Day but failed to engage with other demonstrations to include protests outside the Sri Lankan High Commission. Mr Bandegani submitted that the Judge ignored the significance of TGTE involvement being LTTE‑aligned and failed to consider the prominence of the symbols and emblems displayed by the Appellant at demonstrations.

28. Mr Bandegani submitted that Sri Lanka’s intelligence gathering, infiltration, photographing, video‑recording and monitoring of communications was not factored into the analysis, and the Judge instead focused narrowly on the number of demonstrations and time spent at them.

29. He submitted that headnote (21) of KK and RS makes clear that “prominence” is not required, but the Judge placed unjustified emphasis on the Appellant not holding a prominent role.

30. Mr Bandegani argued that the Judge wrongly treated motivation as determinative, contrary to KK and RS, and that even attendance at one or two demonstrations may place a person in the “something relevant known” category.

Respondent’s Submissions

31. Mr Hulme relied on the Rule 24 response. He submitted that the Appellant’s Grounds cherry picked elements of the decision. This creates an artificial separation between paragraphs [29] and [30], which must be read together. He argued the Judge was not required to recite the entire country guidance. The extract of the country guidance [29] demonstrates engagement with the relevant principles. The Judge clearly demonstrates that he understands the risk factors identified in KK & RS and made an appropriate assessment of the risk to the Appellant applying the principles in KK & RS.

32. He submitted that the Judge accepted the Appellant’s attendance at demonstrations, banner‑holding, TGTE membership card, and involvement with TGTE, and the absence of a detailed description of each demonstration or banner does not indicate they were overlooked. Reference to Heroes Day did not mean other events were not considered.

33. Mr Hulme submitted that the Judge made appropriate findings at [30]. The Judge’s findings of limited demonstrations, lack of prominence, absence of online footprint, and the conclusion that the sur place activities were cynical were sustainable and unchallenged. The Judge properly applied KK and RS when concluding that these factors were insufficient to give rise to adverse interest from the Sri Lankan Authorities.

34. Mr Hulme submitted that the principle that motivation is irrelevant only applies after the threshold of adverse interest is crossed. He argued the Appellant’s activity does not cross that threshold.

35. Mr Hulme submitted that the Appellant would not appear on a watchlist or stop list, and the Judge adequately dealt with the TTD‑related risk. The Judge’s silence on some factors is not indicative that they were excluded or not considered.

Discussion

36. The Respondent accepts that the Judge’s finding at [32] is contrary to the country guidance set out in KK and RS.

37. The Judge found [32] “The Sri Lankan authorities would be able to ascertain the difference between a genuine political dissident who is part of the ultimate goal of establishing Tamil Eelam, and an asylum seeker attempting to develop and establish a fraudulent claim for asylum in the United Kingdom”

38. KK and RS [494] provides “motivation is not relevant” and that the Sri Lankan authorities “will have little or no inclination to enquire into an individual’s good faith or lack thereof”.

39. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Judge has failed to properly apply country guidance or give adequate reasons for departing from country guidance. That is an error of law.

40. The Respondent submits that this error of law is not material because, on the facts as found, the Appellant would not have come to the attention of the Sri Lankan Authorities. I accept that materiality turns on whether, notwithstanding the error, the Judge adequately assessed whether the appellant would attract adverse attention from the Sri Lankan authorities. In that sense the materiality of this error of law stands and falls with Ground 2, which concerns the application of the country guidance set out in KK and RS when assessing risk on return.

41. Turning to Ground 2, the relevant paragraphs of the Judge’s decision are [29] and [30]. The Judge directs himself to KK and RS and sets out extracts of the headnote [29]. The Judge then makes findings of fact in relation to various elements of the Appellant’s sur place claim before concluding that risk on return is not made out [30]:

42. For the purposes of this appeal the relevant provisions of KK and RS provides as follows:

405. ………………………. All three experts have stated that GoSL continues to operate an extensive intelligence-gathering regime which attempts to cover “all forms of communication” and utilises information acquired through the infiltration of diaspora organisations, the photographing and videoing of demonstrations, and the monitoring of the Internet and unencrypted social media. We find that at the initial stage of monitoring and information gathering, it is reasonably likely that the Sri Lankan authorities will wish to gather more rather than less information on organisations in which there is an adverse interest and individuals connected thereto.

420. The starting point for the processing of information gathered in the United Kingdom is, we conclude, the Defence Attaché at the SLHC, an aspect of whose job it is to monitor diaspora activities and report back to Colombo. We accept Dr Smith’s evidence that the Attaché is not simply a “postbox” and that he applies a basic filtration to the information before its next processing stage. As with certain other aspects of the evidence before us, it is unsurprising that we have not been provided with definitive criteria by which this filtration is undertaken. It is logical to infer that the factors relevant to GoSL’s perception of what sur place activities are deemed to be separatist in nature will be in play. We would, however, apply a degree of caution here. As discussed below, once passed back to Colombo, the information is further considered by relevant agencies who will then address their collective mind to it. It is at this later stage, when the assessment of the agencies has been undertaken, that the more rounded and, for our purposes, material picture of the individual will have been inserted into what Dr Smith describes as the “institutional memory” of the authorities. With this in mind, it is reasonably likely that the Defence Attaché’s filtration will not be rigorous, the reason being that agencies in Sri Lanka are likely to be better equipped to provide a more informed analysis. What this initial sift does in our view achieve though is to place a proposed returnee in one of two categories which may be fairly crudely described as “something relevant known” or “nothing relevant known”. Those in the second category might include an individual who, for example, has only attended one or two demonstrations or meetings, without more. It may be, depending on specific findings of fact, that these activities have never become known to the authorities. Alternatively, it may be the case that, whilst known of, such activities are deemed so minimal as to be unworthy of reporting back.

536.

(5) Sur place activities on behalf of an organisation proscribed under the 2012 UN Regulations is a relatively significant risk factor in the assessment of an individual’s profile, although its existence or absence is not determinative of risk. Proscription will entail a higher degree of adverse interest in an organisation and, by extension, in individuals known or perceived to be associated with it. In respect of organisations which have never been proscribed and the organisation that remains de-proscribed, it is reasonably likely that there will, depending on whether the organisation in question has, or is perceived to have, a separatist agenda, be an adverse interest on the part of GoSL, albeit not at the level applicable to proscribed groups.

43. The extracts set out above make clear that a proper application of KK and RS, in this appeal, required consideration of two fundamental issues. Firstly, whether the Appellant was involved or associated with proscribed or separatist groups. Secondly, if so, whether this would draw adverse interest from the Sri Lankan authorities.

44. At Paragraph [30] of the decision the Judge sets out findings in relation to the Appellant’s sur place activity and lack of consequent interest from the Sri Lankan Authorities as follows:

Headnote 10 raises various questions for consideration. I find that the appellant has obtained a membership card from the TGTE. I find from the photographic evidence that he has attended various meetings and demonstrations. The appellant’s representative stated that the photographic evidence indicates attendance at approximately 8 events. The appellant claims to have been a member since 2020. This would therefore average out at approximately 2 events a year. The appellant has held flags and banners. I do not find he has undertaken any prominent roles on behalf of a diaspora organisation. He has attended commemorative events such as Heroes’ day. He has not done any fundraising. He does not appear in any articles or written any articles. He has no presence on social media. He is not involved in political lobbying and is [sic] not signed any petitions. Other factors are mentioned in headnote 21. The appellant has no relevant family connections to the LTTE and given my findings above no relevant history. I find he has attended various demonstrations and meetings in order to bolster or fabricate a claim for asylum. Whilst I accept he has held various banners, flags and attended these events I do not find he has undertaken these activities due to any genuinely held political motivation. Having arrived in the United Kingdom in 2010 I find he has not undertaken any political activities until he made a claim for asylum. Given he presently does not have a passport the headnote (number 11) poses the question as to how he would be reviewed [sic] upon return. The first issue is whether the authorities would be aware of the appellant. I find that the appellant has attended 2 events a year for the last 4/5 years. Some of these are mass events this such as Heroes Day where many people attend. The appellant has given no indication as to how long he remained at these events. Given my finding that he has attended these events cynically as a photo opportunity I do not find that he remained at the events for any significant period of time. None of these photographs of the appellant have been uploaded onto social media or any other platform. The risk is therefore whether he was independently monitored by the Sri Lankan authorities. I do not find it reasonably likely given the relatively few number of demonstrations he has attended and the short periods of time that he is likely to have been there that the Sri Lankan authorities will have both identified the appellant and seen him as a person of interest, or even potential interest.

45. The Judge accepts that the Appellant has attended approximately eight demonstrations at a rate of two per year over a 4 -5 year period. The Judge accepts that this includes attendance at events such as Heroes Day. However, the Judge does not undertake any meaningful analysis as to the character and nature of the other demonstrations that the Appellant has attended. Neither does the Judge conduct any detailed analysis of the Appellant’s involvement in these demonstrations. It is clear from the Appellant’s bundle before the First-tier Tribunal that the subject matter of the demonstrations involved Tamil genocide and separatism. In the photographs produced the Appellant can be seen displaying large flags with LTTE/TGTE emblems and placards calling for separatism. One of the demonstrations appears to have taken place outside of the Sri Lankan High Commission. At this demonstration the Appellant can be seen holding a flag with LTTE/TGTE emblems and a large sign stating “Ealam Tamils demand international justice”. The evidence indicated regular attendance (once every six months) at separatist demonstrations with clear links to LTTE/TGTE over a 4 to 5 year period. In failing to carry out a proper analysis of the character and nature of the demonstrations and the Appellant’s involvement the Judge failed to meaningfully consider whether the appellant was involved or associated with proscribed or separatist groups In my judgement, that is an error of law as this is a fundamental consideration pursuant to the country guidance set out in KK and RS.

46. In addition, when assessing the adverse interest of the authorities, the Judge did not expressly consider that, at the initial stage of information gathering, the Sri Lankan authorities will wish to gather more rather than less information on organisations in which there is an adverse interest and individuals connected thereto [KK and RS [405]]. Neither does the judge consider the low threshold (the example given being one or two demonstrations) for a person to be categorised as “nothing relevant known” rather than “something relevant known” [KK and RS [420]]. The Judge does not consider whether the Appellant’s sur place activity would place him in the “something known category”, the consequence of which is that information would be disseminated to the Sri Lankan Authorities [KK and RS [421].

47. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the Judge failed to properly apply the country guidance set out in KK and RS or give adequate reasons for departing from that country guidance. That is an error of law. For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the Judge would have dismissed the appeal had the Judge not erred. Accordingly, the error of law is material.

48. In addition, I note, the Judge’s finding [30] that “Given my finding that he has attended these events cynically as a photo opportunity I do not find that he remained at the events for any significant period of time”. The grounds state that “how long the Appellant remained at each event was not the subject of evidence or cross-examination at the hearing”. I agree. The finding appears to have been made by drawing an inference from the Judge’s finding that the Appellant’s sur place activity was cynical. Accordingly, I am satisfied that this finding is unsupported by evidence. This is an error of law and is material as I am not satisfied that the Judge would have dismissed the appeal had the Judge not erred.

49. As set out above, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law. The decision is set aside but only in relation to the Appellant’s sur place activity and the risk arising therefrom.

50. There was no challenge to the Judge’s credibility findings [17 -27] or the Judge’s findings that the Appellant had failed to establish that he held genuine political motivation and that he had undertaken sur place activities cynically. These findings are preserved.

51. I have considered Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC) and the relevant Practice Direction and Practice Statement. In my judgment, the nature of the error of law, the scope of the remake decision and the limited extent of the fact finding exercise are such that it is unnecessary to depart from the general principle that this appeal should be retained within the Upper Tribunal for the remaking of the decision.

Notice of Decision

52. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law. The decision is set aside but only in relation to the Appellant’s sur place activity and the assessment of any risk arising therefrom.

53. The Judge’s credibility findings at [17 -27] are preserved as are the Judge’s findings that the Appellant had failed to establish that he held genuine political motivation and that he had undertaken sur place activities cynically.

G Wilson

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

6 March 2026