LP002052021

An anonymity order was made by the First-tier Tribunal. As this is involves an appeal on protection grounds, and although the Appellant no longer pursues that ground, I continue that order. Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the Appellant [CM] is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify her or any member of her family. This direction applies, amongst others, to both parties. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

T he Appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Ennals dated 17 January 2022 ("the Decision"). By the Decision, Judge Ennals dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the Respondent's decision dated 16 November 2020 refusing her protection and human rights claims. This is the second such appeal, the Appellant's first appeal having been dismissed on 13 February 2017.

The Appellant is a national of Sri Lanka. She claims to be at risk as a result of her relationship with "V" - a man she says was believed by the authorities to have been working with the LTTE in 2009. She claimed that she had been detained and abused by the authorities on two occasions in 2009. She came to the UK in 2010 as a student. She returned to Sri Lanka in 2013 when her mother was ill and claimed that she had been detained again. She returned to the UK in September 2013. She did not claim asylum for a further two years. Her refused claim was dismissed on appeal as I have already noted.

The Appellant also relied on her Article 8 rights based on her relationship with a British citizen - Mr A - and his son. His son does not live with them but Mr A still has ongoing contact and the Appellant is said to have formed a relationship with him. It is asserted that Mr A cannot return to Sri Lanka with her due to his relationship with his son. His son is on the autistic spectrum.

The Judge considered the protection appeal by reference to the previous Judge's findings (as he was bound to do in accordance with the Devaseelan guidance). The previous Judge found the protection claim not to be credible. Having considered the further evidence, Judge Ennals also found the claim not to be credible. He therefore upheld the previous findings. The Appellant has not challenged the dismissal of her appeal on this basis.