Case No. UKUT-00450(IAC)

[2016] EWCA Civ 615, at [23]: “I do not address the question of what evidence will be sufficient to enable a Tribunal to conclude that there has been no deception. That is likely to be an intensely fact-specific matter.”We draw attention to two further statements in SM and Qadir. First, the tentative prediction in [103]:“We take note of the indications in the conduct of these appeals that, in some future case, the Secretary of State may seek to adduce further evidence, likely to be expert in nature.”This type of “entirely new ingredient” has materialised in these three conjoined cases, in the shape of three experts’ reports. Finally, this Tribunal stated at [80]:“In some of the FtT decisions in this field one finds observations concerning the appellant’s apparent fluency in, and command of, the English language. We consider that Judges should be cautious in adopting this approach for at least three reasons. The first is the passage of time. The second is that Judges are not language testing or linguistics experts. The third is that, to date, there has been no expert linguistic evidence in any of these cases.”(46) We have considered what Beatson LJ said regarding the issue of burden of proof in