Introduction

In the landmark case AN & SS (Sri Lanka) [2008] UKAIT 63, the United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal re-examined the risks associated with internal relocation for Tamil asylum seekers in Colombo, Sri Lanka. The appellants, AN and SS, both of Tamil ethnicity and former members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), challenged decisions to remove them from the UK, arguing that returning to Colombo would pose significant risks due to past affiliations and perceived opposition by the LTTE or Sri Lankan authorities.

This case is pivotal in understanding the complexities involved in assessing the safety of internal relocation for asylum seekers from conflict zones, particularly in contexts where non-state actors like the LTTE exert substantial influence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tribunal conducted a thorough reconsideration of AN and SS's appeals, focusing on the potential risks they faced upon returning to Colombo. While AN emphasized a well-founded fear of persecution from the LTTE and Sri Lankan authorities, SS additionally faced exclusion under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention due to his involvement in LTTE activities deemed as war crimes.

For AN, the Tribunal concluded that internal relocation to Colombo did not present a real risk of persecution or serious ill-treatment. Factors such as improved mental health, support from organizations like the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), and a shift in LTTE operational capacity contributed to this decision. Consequently, AN's appeal was dismissed on asylum, humanitarian protection, and human rights grounds.

In contrast, SS's appeal was dismissed on asylum and humanitarian protection grounds but allowed on human rights grounds. His significant involvement in LTTE operations, which amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity, led to his exclusion from the protection of the Refugee Convention. However, due to his severe mental illness, his removal would breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Tribunal referenced several key precedents, notably PS (LTTE internal flight sufficiency of protection) [2004] UKAIT 297 and LP (LTTE area Tamils Colombo risk?) [2007] UKAIT 00076. These cases established foundational guidelines for assessing the risks faced by Tamil asylum seekers considering internal relocation within Sri Lanka.

In PS, the Tribunal assessed risks based on high-profile activism and opposition to the LTTE, setting a precedent for evaluating individual cases against broader conflict dynamics. LP further refined these assessments by introducing specific risk factors and distinguishing between direct risk factors and background factors that may exacerbate individual risks.

Legal Reasoning

The Tribunal's decision hinged on a detailed examination of both appellants' histories and the current socio-political climate in Colombo. For AN, the absence of evidence indicating targeted harassment by the LTTE post-2004, coupled with substantial support mechanisms in Colombo, led to the conclusion that relocation would not pose undue risks. The Tribunal critically evaluated expert testimonies, particularly discrediting speculative assertions about LTTE databases tracking opponents.

Regarding SS, the Tribunal adhered to the strict exclusion clauses of the Refugee Convention under Article 1F. His active participation in LTTE's violent operations established his involvement in war crimes, necessitating exclusion from asylum protections. However, recognizing his severe mental illness, the Tribunal invoked the absolute nature of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, preventing his removal due to the risk of inhumane treatment.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future asylum cases involving internal relocation within conflict zones. It clarifies the criteria for assessing risks associated with non-state actors and underscores the importance of distinguishing between different levels of involvement and threat from groups like the LTTE.

Moreover, the case emphasizes the necessity for robust, evidence-based assessments over speculative or unverified expert opinions. The Tribunal's skepticism towards claims of comprehensive LTTE databases serves as a cautionary stance against overreliance on informant-based assertions without substantive corroborating evidence.

For practitioners, this case reinforces the importance of detailed personal histories and the current operational capacities of insurgent groups when advising clients on asylum strategies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The AN & SS (Sri Lanka) [2008] UKAIT 63 decision serves as a critical reference point in asylum law, particularly concerning internal relocation within countries afflicted by civil conflict. By meticulously evaluating the actual operational capacities of groups like the LTTE and distinguishing between high-profile targets and the general Tamil population, the Tribunal set a balanced precedent.

The dismissal of AN's appeal underscores that internal relocation can be a viable option when supported by appropriate infrastructure and when the perceived risks are not substantiated by evidence. Conversely, SS's exclusion highlights the stringent criteria for asylum protection, especially concerning involvement in serious crimes.

Overall, this judgment reinforces the necessity for evidence-based evaluations in asylum cases, ensuring that decisions are grounded in factual assessments of both the individual’s circumstances and the broader security context of their home regions.