Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001395
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/65543/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

10th September 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HOBBS

Between

DD
ANONYMITY ORDER MADE
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the appellant: Mr. A. Bandegani, Counsel instructed by MTC Solicitors
For the respondent: Miss. S. Simbi, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 8 September 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant and/or any member of his family 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 and/or any member of his family. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appeal came before me to remade following the error of law decision promulgated on 23 July 2026. The sole issue before me was whether the appellant was at risk due to her sur place political activities.

The hearing

2. The appellant and her husband attended the hearing.

3. At the outset Miss. Simbi stated that she had considered all of the evidence together with Mr. Bandegani’s Skeleton Argument. Following the case of KK and RS (Sur place activities: risk) Sri Lanka CG [2021] UKUT 130 (IAC) (“KK”), she conceded that the appeal fell to be allowed on asylum grounds, imputed political opinion. She accepted that the appellant would be at risk on return due to the nature and extent of her sur place political activities.

4. Accordingly, and given this concession which I considered to have been properly made, I allowed the appeal.

5. I had before me the appellant’s composite bundle (1348 pages), and the updated Skeleton Argument. Miss. Simbi had considered the updated evidence provided for the remaking which is contained in the composite bundle, in particular the evidence of the appellant’s attendance at demonstrations (pages 50 to 65). I stated that I would have allowed the application under Rule 15(2A) for the admission of this evidence, given its relevance to the appeal, and given that it all post-dates the hearing in the First-tier Tribunal.

6. As discussed, this decision does not need to be overly long given the respondent’s concession.

Decision and reasons

7. Miss. Simbi accepted that the extent and duration of the demonstrations attended by the appellant meant that she would be at risk on return. The finding at [35] of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal that the appellant’s activities had been contrived to improve her chances of remaining, and were not motivated by any genuine interest in Tamil separatism, had been preserved. However, as was accepted by Miss. Simbi, motivation is not relevant to risk ([494] of KK).

8. With reference to [536 (19)] of KK, and as accepted by the respondent, I find that the appellant falls into category (i) on the watch list – “(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”. This is with reference to [536 (20) and (21)].

9. Miss. Simbi stated that, due to the way in which she had been provided with the evidence, she had not been able properly to consider the appellant’s activities cumulatively prior to receipt of the Skeleton Argument. The Skeleton Argument at [34] lists the demonstrations which the appellant attended between May 2021 and July 2026, with reference to the photographic evidence in the bundle. Mr. Bandegani submitted that there were “four qualitative features” to the evidence, duration, repetition, content and visibility. The attendance covers a period of five years with attendance at annual events such as Black July, Mullivaikkal, Independence Day and Heroes Day. The photographs concern “Tamil Eelam, self-determination, genocide, occupation, the LTTE/Tamil Eelam flag and cadre commemoration”, and have taken place at “public and politically conspicuous venues”.

10. It is these factors which show that the appellant would be at risk on return, following KK at [536 (20) and (21)]. Miss. Simbi accepted the evidence of the number of demonstrations attended, and the locations. She accepted that this attendance would create a risk of detention on return to Sri Lanka.

11. At [536(27) and (28)] KK states:

“(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.

(28) Internal relocation is not an option within Sri Lanka for a person at risk from the authorities.”

12. Accordingly, and in line with the respondent’s concession, I find that the appellant has shown that she will be at risk of persecution on return to Sri Lanka on account of her sur place political activities which will have brought her to the attention of the Sri Lankan authorities.

Notice of Decision

13. The appellant’s appeal is allowed on asylum grounds.

14. The appellant’s appeal is allowed on human rights grounds, Article 3.

Kate Hobbs
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
8 September 2026