Nirmalanathan v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An appellate tribunal must engage with the factual basis accepted by the first-instance decision-maker and give intelligible reasons for reversing the result. It must not dilute or misstate material findings to justify a different conclusion. A tribunal may reassess risk in light of changed country conditions and later objective evidence, but it must identify the evidence and explain why the earlier decision can no longer stand. Where that assessment has not been properly undertaken, the appropriate course is to allow the appeal and remit the matter for rehearing.

The appellant, a Sri Lankan Tamil, claimed asylum on the basis of feared persecution by the Sri Lankan authorities and the LTTE. An Adjudicator accepted his account and allowed the appeal, finding a reasonable degree of likelihood of risk on return.

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal, considering that the Adjudicator had relied excessively on an expert report and had not properly assessed changed conditions in Sri Lanka. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which considered whether the Tribunal had addressed the accepted factual findings and given adequate reasons for its conclusion.

1. Appeal allowed. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s reasoning did not provide the properly reasoned decision to which the appellant was entitled. Its assessment understated or diluted material facts accepted by the Adjudicator, including the persistent efforts to locate the appellant and the finding that the authorities were likely responsible for his father’s death.
2. The Tribunal proceeded on mistaken premises: that the Adjudicator had relied solely on Dr Good’s report and had failed to take account of Jeyachandran [2002] UKIAT 01869. The Adjudicator had expressly considered that the appellant had never been arrested or detained, and the Tribunal failed adequately to address the grounds of appeal or the factual findings supporting the risk assessment.
3. It remained open to the Tribunal, on a proper assessment of objective evidence concerning changed conditions in Sri Lanka, to reach a different result. The Court of Appeal therefore declined to direct that the Adjudicator’s decision should stand. The appeal was remitted to the Tribunal for rehearing.
4. Lord Justice Waller and Sir Charles Mantell agreed with Lord Justice Tuckey’s reasons and with the remittal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed and remitted to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal for reconsideration.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal from the Adjudicator’s decision.
3. Adjudicator: Allowed the appellant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s rejection of his asylum claim.