Key Facts
- •MTA applied for resettlement under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS) Pathway 3 on 11 August 2022.
- •The application was refused on 31 March 2023 because MTA did not meet the criteria of being a British Council or GardaWorld contractor or a Chevening alumnus, which were the limited eligibility criteria for Pathway 3 in its first year.
- •MTA challenged the legality of the decision on two grounds: (1) the refusal was unlawful because it was made after the first year of Pathway 3's operation; and (2) it was unlawful to limit Pathway 3 to those three categories even for the first year.
Legal Principles
The court's role is to assess the legality of the Secretary of State's approach, not to determine the content of policy.
This case
In a scheme with limited resources, the Secretary of State has significant latitude to prioritize applicants.
This case
Open justice and the common law obligation of candour require full disclosure in judicial review, without systematic redaction of civil servant names unless justified.
IAB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 66
Outcomes
Ground 1 (refusal unlawful because made after the first year) dismissed.
MTA's application was made within the first year of Pathway 3's operation, and the refusal was consistent with the guidance and statements made at the time.
Ground 2 (unlawful to limit Pathway 3 to three categories) dismissed.
While the initial aspiration of the ACRS was broader, the Secretary of State had sufficient latitude to prioritize the three categories in the first year due to practical obstacles and the rational basis for prioritizing those groups (prior assurances, promotion of UK interests).
Judicial review application failed.
Both grounds of challenge were unsuccessful.