Submissions for the Appellant
13. In the Rule 24 response and in the oral submissions by Mr Mackenzie, the appellant maintained that there was no error of law. The FTT had correctly set out the test at paragraph 75 of Al-Sirri . Having done so it was inconceivable that they would have forgotten it by the time they came to make their determination. In any event , while it was correct that the Supreme Court did not directly equate the standard of proof in the Refugee Convention with the domestic civil standard, it did say that the former was unlikely to be made out unless the latter was also made out. This accorded with the approach taken in AH at paragraphs 82, 101 and 102. It was accepted that paragraph 34 of the determination was not well worded but infelicitous words should not be interpreted as errors of law.
- DECISION AND REASONS
- The Law
- Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Pushpanathan v Canada, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Al-Sirri
- R (on the application of JS) (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Tadic
- KJ (Sri Lanka) v SSHD
- the Evidence
- Upper Tribunal
- Before
- Between
- Appellant
- Representation
- DETERMINATION AND REASONS
- Grounds of Appeal
- Al-Sirri v Secretary of State
- The FTT’s Approach
- Submissions for Secretary of State
- Submissions for the Appellant
- Decision on Ground 1 – Standard of proof
- AH (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Ground 2
- Youssef v Foreign Secretary
- MN (Somalia) v Secretary of State
- Decision on Ground 2
- Further Procedure
- DIRECTIONS
