A Sri Lankan national who faced arrest in connection with the devastating 2019 Easter bombings has succeeded in his appeal against the Home Office’s rejection of his asylum claim.
The man, identified solely as ‘YA’, secured victory at the immigration Upper Tribunal in Birmingham after challenging the initial decision.
The Islamic State-claimed attacks in Sri Lanka resulted in 269 deaths, with British nationals among the victims.
Following the Upper Tribunal’s intervention, the case must now undergo a fresh hearing.
The asylum seeker had contested the fairness of the original proceedings, leading to the tribunal’s examination of potential procedural flaws.
The man entered the UK in 2022 alongside his spouse, both asserting they had faced persecution in their homeland.
Prior to his departure from Sri Lanka, authorities had detained him regarding the coordinated Easter Sunday attacks, which struck churches and hotels across the island nation in April 2019.
The bombings represented one of the deadliest terror incidents in Sri Lankan history.
The Sri Lanka Easter attacks carried out on behalf of IS led to 269 deaths
|
GETTY
Despite the couple’s claims of persecution, the Home Office initially determined that YA did not qualify for asylum protection in Britain.
But Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Claire Burns identified multiple legal errors in the initial determination, notably the failure to consider evidence of YA’s release on bail after his arrest warrant.
The asylum seeker had alleged judicial bias in the earlier proceedings, though Judge Burns rejected claims that previous judges were “highly prejudiced” against him.
Judge Burns determined that the errors warranted setting aside the entire ruling, necessitating a comprehensive re-examination of YA’s case.
The asylum seeker faced arrest in Sri Lanka for his involvement in the bombings
|
GETTY
The judge’s ruling mandated a complete fresh examination of the asylum claim.
Judge Burns said: “I find there will need to be a complete rehearing wherein the Judge will make findings about the credibility of [YA’s] account and given the nature and extent of the fact finding the appeal should therefore be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
She added: “I determine that no facts should be preserved.
“This will enable the new Tribunal to make a full assessment on the credibility of [YA’s] account on full consideration of the oral and documentary evidence.”
The date for the new hearing has yet to be scheduled.
