SS (ILR - Article 8 - Return)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMR JUSTICE OUSELEY,PRESIDENT
Judgment Date04 June 2004
Neutral Citation[2004] UKIAT 126
Date04 June 2004
CourtImmigration Appeals Tribunal

[2004] UKIAT 126

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Ouseley (President)

Mr J Barnes (Vice President)

Between:
SS
Appellant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr I Burnett, instructed by Waran & Co, Solicitors (N17)

For the Respondent: Mr J McGirr, Home Office Presenting Officer

SS (ILR — Article 8 — Return) Sri Lanka

DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1

The Appellant is a citizen of Sri Lanka of Tamil ethnicity who arrived illegally in the United Kingdom on 4 th October 2001 and subsequently claimed asylum on 8 th October 2001. Her screening questionnaire, completed on 10 th October 2001, recorded her as being married to Mr Tharmaseelan Sithrangan but said that she did not know his present address; the box concerned with whether the husband was in the United Kingdom and had made an asylum claim was left blank. Somewhat confusingly, under applicant's details the Appellant referred to her marital status as being that of a single woman. Following submission of a self evidence form the Appellant was then interviewed and her application was refused for the reasons set out in a letter dated 27 th November 2001. On 5 th December 2001, the Secretary of State issued directions for her removal to Sri Lanka as an illegal entrant after refusal of her asylum application. She appealed against the decision on both asylum and human rights grounds, but these did not include any claim to relief under Article 8 of the European Convention nor, apart from the identification of her husband in the screening form, was there any other reference whatsoever to him in connection with her asylum and human rights application.

2

Her appeal was heard on 30 th January 2003 by Mr Jonathan Holmes, an Adjudicator, who dismissed her appeal. The Adjudicator did not believe her account of why she feared persecution or breach of her Article 3 rights in Sri Lanka, but we do not need to refer further to that basis of claim because there is no appeal against the Adjudicator's decision in this respect. The only issue raised before us is whether the Adjudicator erred in law in his approach to the relief sought by her under Article 8 of the European Convention based on the family life which, by the time of the hearing she had established in this country with a Mr Thanabalasingham Sithrangan, whom she claimed to be the person to whom she had referred as her spouse in the screening application under the name of Tharmaseelan Sithrangan.

3

The Adjudicator deals with her evidence as to her marriage at paragraphs 9 to 19 of his determination including the oral evidence of Mr Sithrangan. He noted that, in evidence before him, the Appellant now said that she was in the United Kingdom by late September 2001. She claimed that she had been married on 18 th January 1998 and produced what she described as her marriage certificate accompanied by a translation from Tamil certified as being made by a retired Court interpreter in Sri Lanka on 11 th April 1999. This recorded her husband's name as “Thanapalsingam Sithrangan”. She said in evidence that it was an arranged marriage and that she had never met her husband prior to it. Her husband said they had met one week prior to the marriage. When he left Sri Lanka on 28 th April 1999 he did not take her with him and his only contact with her had been one letter sent to her in Sri Lanka because, he said, there was nothing for him to say to her although he was frequently in contact with his own parents. The Appellant said that the letter provided her with a telephone number as a contact in the United Kingdom who was a female Tamil who had provided her with accommodation when she arrived. She had contacted her from Sri Lanka prior to leaving but had not been able to make any contact with her husband because he had moved away from that address. In his evidence he said he had only one friend in the United Kingdom whom he identified as a single man. He said he did not know who met the Appellant at the airport and denied having any friends other than this man. The Adjudicator noted that on the original marriage certificate produced to him the date of the marriage appeared to have been overwritten.

4

He deals with his factual findings in relation to the claimed marriage and the relationship established with the witness in the United Kingdom at paragraphs 46 to 53 of the determination. He accepted that the Appellant and her witness were the parents of the child born on 17 th November 2002 here, that they lived as tenants or lodgers with another family of Sinhalese and had established a family unit in the United Kingdom with a stable and loving relationship existing between them. He rejected, however, the Appellant's claim to have been married in Sri Lanka on 18 th January 1998 adding I accept that it is likely that they now consider...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • LD (Article 8 - Best Interests of Child) Zimbabwe
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 2 August 2010
    ...test which requires the obstacles or difficulties to go beyond matters of choice or inconvenience. [60]… Furthermore in SS (Sri Lanka) [2004] UKIAT 00126 the Tribunal held that a grant of indefinite leave to remain to the partner of a claimant did not amount to an automatic insurmountable h......
  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2010-08-02, [2010] UKUT 278 (IAC) (LD (Article 8, best interests of child))
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 2 August 2010
    ...test which requires the obstacles or difficulties to go beyond matters of choice or inconvenience. [60]… Furthermore in SS (Sri Lanka) [2004] UKIAT 00126 the Tribunal held that a grant of indefinite leave to remain to the partner of a claimant did not amount to an automatic insurmountable h......
  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2006-04-18, [2006] UKAIT 44 (FN (Article 8, Removal, Viable Options))
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 18 April 2006
    ...CG [2005] UKIAT 00106; KA (draft-related risk categories updated) Eritrea CG [2005] UKAIT 00165; SS (ILR, Article 8, return) Sri Lanka [2004] UKIAT 00126. The appellant’s claim to be at risk in Eritrea We turn first to the appellant’s asylum and Article 3 grounds of appeal. The substance of......
  • FN (Article 8 – removal- viable options)
    • United Kingdom
    • Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
    • 18 April 2006
    ...CG [2005] UKIAT 00106; KA (draft-related risk categories updated) Eritrea CG [2005] UKAIT 00165; SS (ILR, Article 8, return) Sri Lanka [2004] UKIAT 00126. The appellant's claim to be at risk in Eritrea 11 We turn first to the appellant's asylum and Article 3 grounds of appeal. The substance......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT