Court of Appeal rules on deportation of Sri Lankan national
By
Court of Appeal addresses deportation and human rights of a Sri Lankan national facing removal from the UK
Introduction
The Court of Appeal handed down a significant judgment regarding the deportation of PG, a Sri Lankan national, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD). The case revolved around whether PG's deportation would breach his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Background
PG, a 50-year-old Sri Lankan of Tamil ethnicity, entered the UK in 2008 on a student visa. After his visa expired, PG was convicted of multiple sexual offences against minors in 2012 and subsequently faced deportation. PG claimed asylum, arguing that as a gay man, he would face persecution if returned to Sri Lanka.
Legal Proceedings
The Upper Tribunal (UT) Judge Perkins allowed PG's appeal against deportation, citing a breach of Article 3 ECHR. The SSHD appealed this decision, arguing that the UT failed to apply the correct legal principles and provide adequate reasons for departing from existing country guidance.
Country Guidance and Evidence
The case hinged on whether the treatment of gay men in Sri Lanka amounted to persecution. The UT had previously provided guidance in LH & IP, which suggested that the treatment did not generally reach the level of persecution. However, new evidence, including prosecutions under Sri Lankan law, suggested otherwise.
Court of Appeal's Analysis
The Court of Appeal found that the UT Judge Perkins did not sufficiently analyze the evidence considered in LH & IP and failed to provide strong grounds for departing from the country guidance. The Court emphasized the need for a careful analysis of new evidence beyond what was previously considered.
Decision
The Court of Appeal allowed the SSHD's appeal, stating that the UT Judge Perkins' decision could not stand. The case was remitted for a further hearing by the UT to reassess whether PG's deportation would breach his Article 3 ECHR rights.
Implications
This case highlights the complexity of deportation cases involving human rights claims, particularly concerning the treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals in countries with discriminatory laws. It underscores the importance of thorough evidence analysis and adherence to country guidance.
Learn More
For more information on UK immigration and human rights law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Immigration Law.
Read the Guide