UI2023005624

              This is the re-making of the decision in the appellant's appeal, following the setting aside, in two decisions promulgated on 9 January 2025 and 9 April 2025, of the First-tier Tribunal's decision which allowed the appeal on protection and Article 8 human rights grounds.

              The appellant's appeal against the respondent's decision was heard in the First-tier Tribunal on 1 February 2023. For her appeal the appellant relied upon a bundle of documents which included an appeal statement from herself, a psychiatric report from a Dr Dhumad, a GP prescription, a letter and identification card from the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), photographs of her attending rallies and demonstrations in the UK and internet articles which included photographs of herself.

              The SSHD sought permission to appeal the judge's decision on two grounds: firstly, that the Tribunal had made a material misdirection when applying the factual findings to the assessment of risk outlined in KK and RS (Sur place activities: risk) Sri Lanka CG [2021] UKUT 130 (IAC) ; and secondly, that the Tribunal had erred in its decision on Article 8. Permission was granted in the First-tier Tribunal on both grounds.

              The matter then came before the Upper Tribunal on 23 September 2024 to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal Judge had erred in law. In a decision promulgated on 9 January 2025, the Upper Tribunal found as follows:

" 11. We start our analysis with the guidance given in KK and RS . Starting from the premise that the Sri Lankan government will know much about an appellant's activities in the United Kingdom, the Upper Tribunal stated in the headnote (12) that a judge should set out clearly what activities are likely to be known to the Sri Lankan authorities.