A Sri Lankan mother has won a reprieve in her battle to claim asylum after arguing she can’t be deported as she is too depressed to fly.

In 2021, a woman fled a South Asian country, entering the UK due to fears of persecution linked to her family’s affiliation with the Tamil Tigers, a militant organization.

In her asylum claim, the mother of five said she suffers from severe depression and is ‘not fit to fly’ until she recovers from the disorder.

Initially, a judge turned down her asylum request, not accepting that her mental health issues rendered her incapable of flying back to Sri Lanka.

They suggested the woman could be accompanied by one of her four daughters and said her overall claim ‘lacked credibility’.

The woman appealed the decision, and a different judge has now ruled her case must be reheard.

The asylum seeker – who has been granted anonymity – entered the UK on a visit visa in October 2021.

The court was informed that she is a married mother of five, whose husband and son have supported the Tamil Tigers’ quest for Tamil independence since 2004.

She arrived in the UK in 2021, fearing persecution in Sri Lanka because of her family’s support for the militant Tamil Tigers (pictured).

At the asylum hearing, it was highlighted that this mother of five suffers from severe depression and is considered ‘unfit to fly’ until her condition improves (File image of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber).

The asylum seeker claimed this support has subjected her and her family to ‘adverse attention’ from the Sri Lankan authorities.

She fears she will be arrested on arrival if deported, the tribunal heard.

Experiencing mental health struggles since 2004, she contends that returning to Sri Lanka would present ‘very significant obstacles’ due to her depression and the accompanying fear of being targeted.

The tribunal heard four of her daughters are residents in the UK, her son lives in France, and her husband lives in Sri Lanka in an ‘obscure forest area’ to avoid the attention of the authorities.

In her claim, the asylum seeker relied on a psychiatric report produced by consultant psychiatrist Dr Saleh Dhumad.

The judgement stated: ‘[Dr Dhumad] was of the opinion that the [woman’s] presentation was consistent with a diagnosis of recurrent depressive disorder and given her unstable mental health with suicide risks, anxiety and severe depression, [she] was not fit to fly and would remain unfit for a few years until she recovers from her severe depression.’

A first-tier tribunal judge rejected the woman’s claim on the basis that it ‘lacked credibility finding the asylum narrative to be a sheer fabrication’.

The judge said: ‘I do not accept that the mental health condition of the [asylum seeker], such as it is, does not enable her to fly.

The woman has supported Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers militant group. Pictured are activists in Downing Street protesting in support of the Tamils on August 30

Pictured is the Tiger flag which symbolises the desired independent Tamil Eelam or Tamil state

The woman has won a reprieve in her battle to claim asylum after arguing she can’t be deported as she is too depressed to fly (Pictured: protesters in Sri Lanka)

‘She can be accompanied by one of her four daughters, as arranged between the extended members of her family in the UK, whose commonly generated income could contribute to supporting her in Sri Lanka.’

The asylum seeker appealed this decision, and claimed that the judge had failed to give ‘adequate reasons’ for reaching a conclusion different to that of the expert in relation to her fitness to fly.

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Haria found that the first-tier judge had made a legal mistake by failing to explain how they reached their conclusion.

Judge Haria said: ‘Although the [first-tier tribunal judge] acknowledges the [asylum seeker’s] mental health conditions and summarises the expert psychiatric report of Dr Dhumad, there is on the face of the decision no consideration and assessment of the expert report and what if any weight is attributed to the opinions in the report.

‘It was incumbent on the [first-tier tribunal judge] to have set out the reasons for departing from the views of Dr Dhumad.

‘It cannot be inferred that the [first-tier tribunal judge] concluded no weight is to be given to the report of Dr Dhumad.

‘The [first-tier tribunal judge] may having assessed the expert report ultimately decided to give it no or little weight, but it is necessary for there to be reasons for reaching such a conclusion.

‘The [first-tier tribunal judge] may reach a finding contrary to the opinion given in an expert report provided the [first-tier tribunal judge] gives reasons.

‘The decision of the FTJ involved the making of errors of law and is set aside in its entirety.’

Judge Haria set the decision aside and said it must be heard again.