KK and RS (Sri Lanka) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 119 (19 January 2022)

KK and RS (Sri Lanka) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 119 (19 January 2022)

The Upper Tribunal did not err in law by clarifying or amending previous country guidance, as it was entitled to do so based on the evidence and need for clarification. Motivation for sur place activities is not relevant to risk assessment unless the Sri Lankan authorities are likely to inquire into it, which the Tribunal found they are not. The finding that expression of separatist views in Sri Lanka would likely lead to detention and persecution was supported by the evidence. The Tribunal's findings in the individual cases were reasoned and open to it.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 119
Parties
Claimant/respondent: KK and RS (Sri Lanka); Respondent/applicant: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal (immigration and Asylum) / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the Upper Tribunal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Country Guidance, Sur Place Activities, Political Opinion Persecution, Risk Assessment, Procedural Law
Immigration Law Asylum Law Human Rights Law Country Guidance Sur Place Activities Political Opinion Persecution Risk Assessment Procedural Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KK and RS (Sri Lanka)

Claimant/respondent

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (immigration and Asylum) / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the Upper Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Upper Tribunal erred in law by clarifying or amending previous country guidance without sufficient basis
  2. 2 Whether motivation for sur place activities is relevant to risk assessment for asylum claims
  3. 3 Whether expression of separatist views in Sri Lanka would likely lead to detention and persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The Upper Tribunal did not err in law by clarifying or amending previous country guidance, as it was entitled to do so based on the evidence and need for clarification. Motivation for sur place activities is not relevant to risk assessment unless the Sri Lankan authorities are likely to inquire into it, which the Tribunal found they are not. The finding that expression of separatist views in Sri Lanka would likely lead to detention and persecution was supported by the evidence. The Tribunal's findings in the individual cases were reasoned and open to it.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is dismissed.
  • Permission granted for this decision to be referred to in subsequent proceedings.