CBC and GSD v Secretary of State for Defence: Afghan Relocation Policy refusals quashed over undisclosed guidance

Mr Justice Garnham has quashed decisions refusing relocation to the United Kingdom under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy for two former security guards at the British Embassy Kabul, finding that unpublished internal guidance should have been made available to help them understand what evidence was needed to succeed.

In R (CBC and GSD) v Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2026] EWHC 2147 (Admin), both claimants had worked for extended periods as contracted guards at the embassy, a role they said placed them at the front line of repeated terrorist threats. Their applications under Category 4 of ARAP were refused on the basis that, although they had worked alongside a UK Government department, they had not shown a substantive and positive contribution to the UK's military or national security objectives in Afghanistan, as Condition 2 of that category requires.

The claimants advanced four grounds of challenge. They argued the decisions were unfair because a document known as the Category 4 Operational Guidance, prepared to help caseworkers apply Condition 2, had never been published or, in one case, applied; that an unpublished policy existed to exclude British Embassy Kabul guards as a class; that caseworkers had misapplied Condition 2 or fettered their discretion by reference to an internal information note; and that the decisions were irrational, including in their treatment of the embassy's institutional importance and the individual circumstances of the claimant known as CBC.

The judge rejected the claim that a blanket exclusionary policy had been operated. Although evidence showed officials had intended, during the scheme's development, that embassy guards would be unlikely to qualify, he found this intention was never translated into an operative instruction, noting that internal procedures in fact required such applications to be individually referred to the relevant department for assessment. The fettering and misinterpretation ground failed for want of evidence that caseworkers had been given or applied the internal information note in question. On irrationality, the judge held that decision makers were entitled to focus on each claimant's personal contribution rather than that of the embassy as an institution, rejecting the argument that this amounted to an unlawful narrowing of the relevant test, and found the specific criticisms of the assessment in CBC's case to be an impermissible dissection of otherwise rational reasoning read as a whole.

The claim succeeded, however, on the question of publication. Drawing on the recent decision in CHD v Secretary of State for Defence, the judge held that where the statutory criteria for Category 4 are expressed in broad terms, applicants are entitled to know the more specific target the executive expects them to meet. The unpublished Operational Guidance, he found, met that description, and its existence undermined the transparency required of a lawful decision-making process, regardless of whether individual caseworkers in these cases had actually seen or relied on it. He declined to refuse relief under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, finding it could not be said the outcome would inevitably have been the same had the claimants had the benefit of the guidance when preparing their applications.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted to both claimants, the refusal decisions were quashed, and the applications were remitted for reconsideration, with the claimants given 28 days to make further submissions.