NS, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Office
[2023] EWHC 2675 (Admin)
RMO v Secretary Of State for the Home Department
19 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1826 (Admin)
High Court
A student asylum seeker was told to move away from his university. The court said the government's decision was unfair because it didn't properly consider his studies. The government has to make a new, fairer decision.
Key Facts
- •RMO, an Iraqi asylum seeker, challenged the Home Secretary's decision to relocate him from Norwich, where he was studying for a Master's degree at the University of East Anglia (UEA).
- •The Home Secretary refused RMO's request to remain in Norwich based on their accommodation policy, which prioritizes areas with a ready supply of accommodation.
- •RMO argued that the decision failed to consider his exceptional circumstances (his studies, scholarship, and voluntary work) and disproportionately interfered with his Article 8 right to private and family life.
- •The Home Secretary's decision letter lacked detailed reasoning and analysis of RMO's circumstances.
Legal Principles
Secretary of State has discretion to provide support to asylum seekers under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, considering adequacy of accommodation based on individual needs.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, sections 95 & 96
Decision-maker can devise a policy to guide discretion, but must remain open to considering individual circumstances and new information.
R (Gujra) v CPS [2012] UKSC 52; British Oxygen Co Ltd v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610
Home Office Allocation of Accommodation policy must consider individual circumstances, even if personal preferences are disregarded.
Asylum Support Regulations 2000, Regulation 13; R (Hetoja) v Home Secretary [2002] EWHC 2146 (Admin)
Decisions must be adequately reasoned, enabling understanding of conclusions on principal issues.
Oakley v South Cambridgeshire DC [2017] 1 WLR 3765; South Bucks DC v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953
Article 8 of ECHR can be engaged by a student's involvement with their course and college, depending on the facts.
Ahsan v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 2009; CDS (PBS: “available”: Article 8) Brazil [2010] UKUT 00305 (IAC)
Outcomes
Claim allowed; Home Secretary's decision quashed.
The decision was inadequately reasoned, failed to properly consider the claimant's circumstances and the policy's provision for temporary accommodation, and failed to address the Article 8 issue.
Mandatory order to remake the decision.
The Home Secretary must consider whether temporary accommodation in Norwich is possible and properly engage with the Article 8 arguments.
Similar Cases
R (MQ) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 205 (Admin)
Rawle Ganpot & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 197 (Admin)
SA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1787 (Admin)
Raol Barizi, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 3491 (Admin)