YM (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On a renewed application for permission to appeal an asylum decision, the Court of Appeal will not re-examine a tribunal’s credibility and evidential findings where no arguable error of law is shown. An alternative finding that there is no real risk on return may independently dispose of the claim, particularly where it is made on the assumption that the applicant’s account is true and remains unchallenged. Any error in rejecting documentary evidence is immaterial if the alternative finding is unassailable. Permission should be refused where the proposed challenge has no real prospect of success.

The appellant, a Sri Lankan Tamil, sought asylum and related humanitarian relief after entering the United Kingdom. An Immigration Judge rejected his account and documentary evidence and alternatively found that he would face no real risk on return even if his account were true.

On reconsideration, Senior Immigration Judge Lane found no error of law and held that the alternative risk assessment was unassailable. The appellant renewed his application for permission to appeal, challenging the treatment of the evidence and arguing that the risk could not be assessed until the factual basis of his claim had been determined.

1. Application refused. The renewed application disclosed no real prospect of success.
2. The Court of Appeal rejected the renewed challenge to the credibility findings. The documentary evidence and the letters from Mr Ganesharajah had already been considered by the tribunal on two occasions. The proposed challenge invited the court to revisit factual and credibility matters without identifying an error of law.
3. The alternative ground independently defeated the application. The Immigration Judge had assessed the risk on return on the basis that the appellant’s account was entirely true. On that assumed basis, the appellant said that he had been acquitted of the earlier charges and therefore faced no further problems arising from them. If the arrest warrant was genuine, nothing in the case indicated that he would not receive fair treatment in detention or a fair trial if outstanding charges were pursued.
4. Because the alternative finding of no real risk on return was unassailable, any error in the treatment of the documentary evidence could not have been material to the result. The appellant therefore failed to show an arguable error of law or a real prospect of success.
5. Permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: On reconsideration, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of asylum and related humanitarian relief.