UI2023002538

      By an Upper Tribunal transfer order dated 11 April 2023, this appeal was transferred to me from Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge B Keith, who had found that the First-tier Tribunal should be set aside for error of law. Following a resumed hearing, I now give my reasons for remaking the decision.

      The burden of proof in the appeal is on the appellant and the standard of proof as regards the question of the appellant's nationality/statelessness (the only issue in the appeal) is the balance of probabilities.

      Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Keith recorded that [4] '[the appellant] claims to be a national of Burma and claims he was born on 1 January 1984. The [appellant] claims that he is stateless because Burma does not recognise his nationality and that he is not a Bangladeshi citizen. He claims to be Bangladeshi even though he has never naturalised as a citizen. His case is that he has no right to return to Bangladesh.'

      Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Keith found that the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Knight) had erred in law by failing to apply the principles of Devaseelan (Second Appeal, ECHR, Extra-Territorial Effect) [2002] UKIAT 702 . The First-tier Tribunal failed to deal correctly with the decision of a previous Tribunal (Judge Devittie: decision promulgated 6 July 2016).

      The resumed hearing proceeded by way of submissions only. There was no oral evidence. The burden of proof in the remaking of the decision is on the appellant and the standard of proof is that of reasonable likelihood. In any Article 8 ECHR appeal, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.