DM, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 967 (Admin)
HR & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
11 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 786 (Admin)
High Court
Three sisters were separated from their family during a UK evacuation from Afghanistan. They sued the government for not helping reunite them quickly. The judge said there was a way to apply for family reunification, so they lost the case. However, the judge said the government hadn't been entirely truthful in the way it gave information to the court.
Key Facts
- •Three Afghan sisters (claimants) were evacuated to the UK during Operation Pitting in August 2021, separated from their parents and brothers who remained in Afghanistan.
- •Claimants were granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS).
- •Claimants sought judicial review, arguing the Home Office's refusal to facilitate family reunification was unlawful.
- •The Home Office initially claimed it lacked data on separated children but later revealed it was aware of approximately 80 such cases.
- •A Ministerial Submission recommended a new route for family reunification, which the Home Office subsequently accepted.
- •The claimants argued the Home Office's insistence on using standard visa application forms was irrational and unfair given the circumstances.
Legal Principles
LOTR policy requires applications to be made on forms most closely matching circumstances, to ensure fair and efficient processing.
R (S) v SSFCA [2022] EWHC 1402 (Admin) and S and AZ v SSHD and SSD [2022] EWCA Civ 1092
Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 requires the Secretary of State to consider the welfare of children in the UK when exercising immigration functions.
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, Section 55
A legitimate expectation arises from clear, unambiguous, and unqualified government representations, and must be considered within a reasonable timeframe.
R (GA) v SSHD and others [2023] EWHC 871 (Admin)
Government departments have a duty of candour, requiring the disclosure of relevant information, even if potentially damaging.
R (JM) v SSHD [2022] PTSR 260
Outcomes
Grounds 1-6 of the claimants' judicial review claim were dismissed.
The court found that the claimants had an adequate alternative remedy through the existing visa application process and the LOTR policy. The Home Office's policy, while potentially improved by the proposed new route, was not irrational or unlawful.
The Home Office was found to have breached its duty of candour.
The Home Office failed to disclose its knowledge of approximately 80 separated children and withheld the Ministerial Submission until late in the proceedings, despite its relevance to the case.
Similar Cases
YMB & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
[2024] EWHC 1950 (Admin)
AB, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 287 (Admin)
MP1, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence
[2024] EWHC 410 (Admin)
SA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1787 (Admin)