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

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, an immigration judge must consider the evidence afresh and reach an independent judgment. Reference to an earlier determination is permissible if it does not replace that assessment. A credibility finding will be disturbed only where it was not reasonably open to the judge on the evidence. Relevant country-guidance risk factors require consideration even where an account is disbelieved, but omission to address each factor separately will not justify an appeal where there is no realistic prospect of a different outcome.

The appellant, a Sri Lankan Tamil, challenged the refusal of his asylum claim on refugee Convention and human rights grounds. Following procedural difficulties at an earlier hearing, Immigration Judge Kelsey reconsidered the case and rejected the appellant’s account.

He renewed an application for permission to appeal, alleging reliance on the earlier determination, misstatements of evidence, a Wednesbury unreasonable credibility finding, and failure to apply the country guidance in LP (LTTE area, Tamils, Colombo, risk) Sri Lanka [2007] UKAIT 00076.

1. Application refused. The reconsidering immigration judge had to assess the evidence independently. Reference to the earlier determination was unusual but lawful because the judge had applied his own mind and reached his own conclusions.
2. The alleged evidential errors were immaterial and did not vitiate the overall credibility findings.
3. The credibility conclusion was reasonably open to the judge on the totality of the evidence. The medical evidence of scarring did not require a different result.
4. LP identified risk factors requiring consideration even where an account was disbelieved, including ethnicity, alleged LTTE support, scarring, return from London, illegal departure and an overseas asylum claim. Tamils were not per se at risk in Colombo. Although separate consideration would have been preferable, there was no real prospect of a different outcome.
5. Order: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): renewed application for permission to appeal refused.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Immigration Judge Kelsey dismissed the appeal against refusal of asylum on refugee Convention and human rights grounds.