Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The immigration history of the claimant can be set out briefly. He is a national of Sri Lanka who was born on 2 May 1982. He is of Tamil ethnicity and he was from Jaffna in the North of Sri Lanka. He entered this country as a student on 15 August 2011 with valid leave to enter.
The case was then listed for hearing at Taylor House on 16 April 2015 as I have noted. That is some two months after notice had been given to the Secretary of State that the basis of his appeal would be that the claimant was entitled to asylum. In the context of this appeal that is of some relevance.
The claimant's reasons for claiming asylum were essentially that he would be perceived on return to be a current supporter of the LTTE and would be perceived as someone who was a risk to the unitary state post civil war in that country. As noted by the panel at paragraph 5 of its determination "the main thrust of his appeal was his refugee claim based on an imputed and/or political opinion, in that he was suspected by the Sri Lankan authorities of being a member of the LTTE working to regroup and revive the LTTE in Sri Lanka".
The hearing of this appeal, we were told by Mr Lewis representing the claimant today, had originally been listed for 10am although it was put back until 2pm. At 2.05pm, that is at that hearing itself, for the very first time the advocate representing the Home Office at that hearing sought permission to adduce evidence of what was said to be a "watch list" which was in the public domain and which listed various organisations and persons said to be of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities.
The panel then went on to consider the claimant's appeal first by making findings with regard to his evidence which was accepted as being truthful and then in the context of these findings considering whether he would be at risk in light of the guidance given by this Tribunal in the country guidance case of GJ and others (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT 319 . On the basis of its findings and in light of the country guidance the panel allowed the claimant's appeal, considering that he would be at risk of persecution on return.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.