Jeyachandran
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE COLLINS |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] UKIAT 1869 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
| Docket Number | APPEAL NO: HX62913-2000 |
| Date | 10 June 2002 |
[2002] UKIAT 1869
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
The Honourable Mr Justice Collins (President)
Mr R Baines JP
Mr C P Mather
APPEAL NO: HX62913-2000
Mr D Lawson of Counsel instructed by Tony Purton Solicitors, for the Appellant
Mr D Buckley, HOPO, for the Respondent
TJ (Risk-Returns) Sri Lanka CG
The appellant in this case is a Tamil from Sri Lanka who was born in May 1969. In 1985 his father was killed by soldiers following an explosion which had killed some other soldiers and in 1988 the appellant himself was detained and was he said tortured by soldiers from the Indian army. That resulted in some scarring to his legs. Between 1986 and 1992 the appellant was a full time student and then between 1992 and 1999 he ran alone a tutorial college first at Chavakacheri and then at Kilinochi. The former school was next to an LTTE hospital and the appellant said that he was forced to print leaflets for the LTTE. When the army took Jaffna he fled and then started up the second college. Again he had problems with the LTTE because in July 1999 he was compelled to dig bunkers. There was an attack by the army, either bombing or shelling and according to the appellant he took the opportunity to escape, indeed he ran away from the shelling and escaped from the LTTE. But he was he said wanted by the army and his name was put on a wanted list because the army had discovered the materials which he had printed for the LTTE when he had been operating at Chavakacheri and thereafter he was on a wanted list. He knew that because his mother was living in an area controlled by the army and she was not allowed to leave that area until he was produced to the army. He was still on the wanted list, albeit he had never supported nor had he fought for the LTTE willingly. Anything he had done for them was as a result of pressure and threats.
His asylum claim was refused by the Secretary of State who was not entirely happy with the account that he had given. He appealed to an adjudicator and his appeal was heard on 20 February 2001 by the then Chief Adjudicator, His Honour Judge Dunn QC. Judge Dunn accepted the account which he had given and that he was an honest witness. The only reservation he had was about his running away and escaping from the LTTE when the shelling or bombing occurred. But, as Judge Dunn indicated, that had no effect on his overall credibility and on the basic account which had been established to a reasonable degree of likelihood. He dealt with a fear of persecution by the LTTE resulting from his unwilling assistance and his escape and that he rejected. He said that it did not constitute a case of persecution in the past by the LTTE and was not a basis for a well founded fear of persecution by the LTTE were he to return. Mr Lawson has attacked that finding and has submitted that his home area was where the LTTE was operating and he could not go there. It now transpires that it may well be that at least where he lived for part of the time has now been taken over by the army and were he to return there he would not be in danger from the LTTE. The reality is in our view that the claim of persecution by the LTTE is now irrelevant. This case depends upon whether there is reasonable likelihood of persecution by the authorities in the form of the army or any other security forces were he to return initially to Colombo where he would be, it is said, interrogated at the airport, or if he were to return to his home area which is now under army control where the same fate would await him.
The significant finding by the Chief Adjudicator is that he is on a wanted list and that is confirmed by the prohibition upon his mother leaving the area until he, the appellant was produced to the army. That is a finding which the Chief Adjudicator was entitled to reach. He heard the appellant and he assessed the evidence that he gave and decided that he believed the account that he was giving. Whether we would have reached the same conclusions is nothing to the point. We only interfere in findings of fact if we are persuaded that they are clearly wrong or if there is no evidence which can properly found such a finding of fact. That is not the situation in this case. That being so we have to regard this appellant as someone who if returned to Sri Lanka, will be likely to be recognised when his identity is examined on return as someone who is wanted by the authorities. Until recently that would undoubtedly have created a real risk of some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2005-03-23, [2005] UKIAT 72 (RG (Suicide, Risk, Razgar Considered))
...brokered between the authorities and the LTTE in February 2002. It is quite clear from the Tribunal jurisprudence from Jeyachandran [2002] UKIAT 01869 and Brinston [2002] UKIAT 01547 onwards that, taken his claims at their highest, there is no prospect that the appellant's history in Sri La......
-
Indrakumar v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Imm AR 162 Sarker v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentUNK unreported 8 November 2000 Brinston [2002] UKIAT 547 Jeyachandran [2002] UKIAT 1869 S and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] INLR 416 Koci v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentUNK [2003] EWCA Ci......
-
RG (Suicide - Risk - Razgar Considered)
...brokered between the authorities and the LTTE in February 2002. It is quite clear from the Tribunal jurisprudence from Jeyachandran [2002] UKIAT 01869 and Brinston [2002] UKIAT 01547 onwards that, taken his claims at their highest, there is no prospect that the appellant's history in Sri La......
-
SS v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...general level, Miss Bayati recognised that the cautious note sounded by the UNHCR was the same as sounded before the Tribunal decided in Jeyachandran [2002] UKIAT 01689 that it was only the exceptional case which would not be able to return in safety. The position was reviewed in Thiagaraja......