Case No. UKUT-00294-(IAC)

37. Though embedded in Ground 1, this emerged in argument as a discrete ground of appeal. The gist of this ground is that the FtT erred in law by imposing a burden on the Appellant to demonstrate that his personal conduct does not pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. While this was formulated as one of the strands, or alternatives, of the main ground of appeal, we consider that it has a free standing status. 38. In the introductory paragraphs of its decision, the FtT, under the rubric “ Burden and Standard of Proof ” states, at [8]: “ The Appellant claims he is at risk of persecution on return to Spain. Alternatively or in addition, that there will be a breach of Articles 5 and 6. The burden is on the Appellant to show as of today’s date that there are substantial grounds for believing that he meets the requirements of the Qualification Regulations.