UI2021000737

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 .

      The appellant is a national of Sri Lanka. He was granted permission to appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against the respondent's refusal of protection and human rights claims. Following the grant of permission the respondent provided a rule 24 response on 25 November 2021, which accepted that the First-tier Tribunal had committed a material error of law. The response stated that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a complete re-hearing.

      I have considered whether the respondent's concession on the question of error of law is appropriate and have concluded that it is. The First-tier Tribunal clearly proceeded on a misapprehension of the undisputed facts as regards who held positions of power in Sri Lanka at the relevant time. This error undermined the entirety of the First-tier Tribunal's assessment of risk on return. The error of law requires a remittal to the First-tier Tribunal for a complete re-hearing with no preserved findings of fact.

      At present, the appellant has not engaged with his case for a considerable period of time. Once this case goes back to the First-tier Tribunal, it is important that all appropriate efforts are made to contact the appellant in order to find out whether he wishes to pursue his appeal or whether he wishes to withdraw it. Whilst it is a matter for the First-tier Tribunal, it might be sensible to arrange for a case management review hearing at the first available opportunity in order to determine whether a substantive hearing is in fact required.