All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
The First-tier Tribunal Judge had not erred in finding an inconsistency in the Claimant's evidence, and there was no basis for a challenge to the refusal of permission to appeal.
8 November 2013
(1) The Claimant is a Sri Lankan ethnic Tamil who arrived in the UK on 21 December 2008. He was refused entry and did not claim asylum. The Claimant was later found working in the UK on 21 October 2010, and he claimed asylum on 8 December 2010. The Claimant's asylum claim had been based upon a fear of persecution by the Sri Lankan authorities as they believed him to be involved with the LTTE. The Claimant contended that he had previously been arrested, detained and tortured by the authorities on three occasions.
(2) By this claim, the Claimant challenged the decision to refuse him permission to appeal against a decision made by the First-tier Tribunal rejecting his appeal against the refusal of his claim for asylum by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (this decision was made on 28 July 2011). The First-tier Tribunal Judge had not found it credible that the Claimant had not known that he could seek protection by the UK authorities when he initially arrived in the UK, and considered that the Claimant's allegations as to detention and ill-treatment by the Sri Lankan authorities were after thoughts made to support his asylum claim.
(3) The Claimant argued that he should have been granted permission to appeal on the basis that the Upper Tribunal had applied the wrong test in refusing him permission to appeal. The basis of the appeal was said to be that the Judge had failed to identify the consistencies between oral evidence and that stated at the Claimant's asylum interview, and once this was demonstrated to have been an error, the Claimant only had to show that it was possible that the decision would have differed had there been no error.
(4) HELD: The Court identified that the judge had correctly identified an inconsistency, and had been entitled to treat this as a material difference. Whilst direct reference perhaps should have been made to the asylum interview, this did not negate the Judge's point that there was an inconsistency in the evidence given to the Court.
(5) The judge was not required to mention every point in giving her reasons, and she had been entitled to conclude that what was said at the asylum interviews was not material. The judge had considered the case with care, and had reached her conclusion on substantial grounds.
(6) The Upper Tribunal was not wrong to refuse permission to appeal, nor had it applied the wrong test. Given this, the claim was dismissed.
 - Correct in inconsistency identified.
 - No direct reference asylum interview.
 - Reasons.
 - Conclusion
To read the full case summary and to view the case transcript, you must subscribe to Jordans Public Law Online (if you already subscribe click here to log in).
To request a free trial click here and select Jordans Public Law online from the drop down menu
Full text reports of cases on all aspects of licensing law and practice.