UI2024001135 & UI2024001136

              Anonymity. Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant has been granted anonymity, and is to be referred to in these proceedings by the initials MMNS and MMS. 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.

              In consequence of the grant of permission the matter came before me to determine in the first place where there was a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal such that it fell to be set aside. If there was then I would make directions on the rehearing of the appeal. If there was not the decision at first instance would stand.

              As to ground 2 the judge had failed to consider relevant evidence regarding the appellant's ability to leave Sri Lanka without difficulties. The appellants had paid ₹ 2 million to be taken through the airport security checks. The judge not taken this into account. If she had she would not have been able to rely on ease of leaving in her findings.

          As to ground 2, the judge's findings in relation to the ease of exit did not rely solely on her findings in relation to the arrest warrants. The judge had made numerous adverse findings of credibility against the appellants which had not been challenged in the grounds of onward appeal. In any event just because the judge had not mentioned the appellant's claim to pay a bribe did not mean that it had been ignored by her.

          In conclusion counsel argued that it would be an error for the judge to have made negative credibility findings and then considered whether that finding was undermined by further evidence. That would offend the Mbangi principle. There was a duty on the judge to look at all relevant factors. If the judge accepted that the arrest warrants were genuine there was no dispute that the appellants would have had difficulties on return.