Sandrasegarampillai v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In assessing whether an asylum claimant has a well-founded fear on return, a lack of a high profile is relevant but not determinative. Present risk must be assessed against the claimant’s individual circumstances and the current country evidence. Earlier decisions concerning claimants on wanted lists, recent detention or unlawful escape do not require the same result where the material facts differ. A tribunal’s reasons need not be extensive if the basis of its conclusion is apparent from the determination and the conclusion was open to it on the evidence. The weight given to competing evidence is ordinarily a matter for the tribunal.

The appellant, a Sri Lankan Tamil, claimed asylum after detention and ill-treatment by the army on three occasions. An adjudicator dismissed his appeal. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed his further appeal on 25 July 2003, accepting that the adjudicator had wrongly rejected evidence from the appellant’s sister but concluding that the appellant would not be regarded as a wanted man or be of adverse interest on return.

Before the Court of Appeal, the appellant challenged the Tribunal’s reliance on his lack of a high profile and the adequacy of its reasons. The central issues were whether the Tribunal had applied the correct approach to changed country conditions and whether its assessment of future risk disclosed an error of law.

Dyson LJ delivered the judgment, with Thomas and Brooke LJJ agreeing. The appeal was unanimously dismissed.

1. The approach in Jeyachandran [2002] UKIAT 01869, as applied in Selvaratnam [2003] EWCA Civ 121, required current country evidence to be related to the claimant’s particular circumstances. Improvement in the general situation did not mean that every claimant could safely return. Earlier cases involving a claimant on a wanted list, recent detention and unlawful escape were fact-sensitive and did not govern this appeal.
2. The Tribunal was entitled to take the appellant’s lack of a high profile into account when assessing whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution. That factor was relevant, but it would have been a misdirection to treat it as determinative or as a necessary condition.
3. The Tribunal could rationally rely on the appellant’s ability to escape detention, obtain official passes to move freely, secure release after his third detention and leave Sri Lanka using a passport bearing his name and photograph. There was no evidence that he was on a generally circulated wanted list. The weight to be given to his sister’s contrary evidence was for the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal would have been well advised to give brief reasons for concluding that the appellant was no longer a wanted man. Nevertheless, the reasons could be inferred from the determination and the conclusion was open on the evidence. The failure to explain the reasoning more fully therefore did not amount to an error of law.

Order: appeal dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was unanimously dismissed: [2004] EWCA Civ 1372.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal — The Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 25 July 2003.
3. Adjudicator — The adjudicator dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 24 June 2002.