MA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs & Anor
[2024] EWHC 332 (Admin)
MP1, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence
4 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 410 (Admin)
High Court
An Afghan judge and his family were denied relocation to the UK. A judge ruled the decision was unfair because officials didn't properly consider the judge's vital work supporting UK efforts in Afghanistan. The case was sent back for a fairer review.
Key Facts
- •MP1, a lawyer and former Afghan judge, challenged the Secretary of State for Defence's decision to deny him and his family relocation to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP).
- •MP1's application was initially refused and subsequently reviewed twice, leading to the final decision under challenge.
- •MP1 argued that the review panel failed to consider relevant evidence, provided insufficient reasons, misconstrued the ARAP, and applied an unlawfully narrow approach.
- •The Claimant relied on expert reports highlighting the significant contribution of Afghan judges to UK national security objectives in Afghanistan.
- •The review panel's decision primarily focused on the lack of direct employment by a UK government department, neglecting the broader context of MP1's work and its alignment with UK goals.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of policy statements should be based on the objective meaning a reasonable person would understand, not the minister's subjective intent.
Mahad (Ethiopia) v Entry Clearance Officer [2010] 1 WLR 48
In ARAP cases, the duty to give reasons is heightened given the potential life-threatening consequences for the applicant.
R (MN) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] 1 WLR 1956
The court must scrutinize keenly the application of the policy and the reasons given, especially where the applicant's life is at risk.
R (BAL and others) v Secretary of State for Defence and another [2022] EWHC 2757 (Admin)
A high quality of reasoning is required in decisions with significant consequences for the applicant.
R (MN) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] 1 WLR 1956
Subsequent evidence contradicting original reasons or providing new reasons is generally inadmissible.
R (Inclusion Housing Community Interest Company) v Regulator of Social Housing [2020] EWHC 346 (Admin)
Conditions 1 and 2 of ARAP Category 4 should be considered together, especially when the applicant wasn't directly employed or contracted by HMG.
R (LND1) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 1795
Outcomes
The court quashed the Secretary of State's decision.
The review panel failed to consider relevant evidence, provide sufficient reasons, misconstrued the ARAP, and applied an unlawfully narrow approach. The panel's failure to engage with the expert evidence and its misinterpretation of the 'working alongside' criteria led to an irrational decision.
The case was remitted to the Defendant for further consideration of conditions 3 and 4 in Category 4.
While the court found that the claimant satisfied conditions 1 and 2, it is for the Defendant to assess whether conditions 3 and 4 are met. If so, the claimant and his family's application for entry clearance will proceed.
Similar Cases
LND1 & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1795 (Admin)
LND1 & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
[2024] EWCA Civ 278
FMA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1579 (Admin)
YMB & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
[2024] EWHC 1950 (Admin)