High Court clarifies ARAP eligibility criteria in Afghan relocation case

The High Court of Justice has delivered a significant judgement clarifying the eligibility requirements under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP), providing important guidance on the interpretation of "substantive and positive" contributions to UK national security objectives.

In the case of AFA v Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Justice Garnham examined two decisions dated 6 November and 19 December 2023, which refused the claimant's application for relocation under ARAP Category 4. The judgement establishes crucial precedents regarding the assessment criteria applied to Afghan nationals seeking relocation based on their previous work with UK government-funded operations.

ARAP was established following the Taliban's return to power in Afghanistan, enabling eligible Afghan nationals who supported UK government departments to relocate due to security threats. The policy's Category 4 provisions require applicants to demonstrate that their contributions materially advanced UK government objectives in Afghanistan.

The claimant argued that his employment as a driver for various UK contractors constituted qualifying service under ARAP. However, the court found that whilst AFA had indeed worked under contract to UK government-funded programmes, the nature of his role was classified as logistical support rather than work directly affecting UK security objectives.

The judgement emphasises that mere employment under UK government contracts is insufficient for ARAP eligibility. Instead, the assessment focuses on the substance and impact of the individual's contributions. The court reinforced that operational guidance requires decision-makers to evaluate whether roles delivered direct benefits to UK security efforts, rather than simply providing general support services.

Central to the court's analysis was the interpretation of "substantive and positive" contributions within the policy framework. The defendants successfully argued that AFA's work, whilst valuable in a logistical capacity, had only indirect effects on broader security aims. This distinction proved decisive in determining that his contributions fell short of the stringent criteria established under ARAP.

The judgement also addressed procedural requirements governing ARAP assessments. The court dismissed arguments suggesting inadequate inquiry by the defendants, finding that they had fulfilled their obligations to seek additional information from the claimant. The judgement clarifies that the burden remains on applicants to provide substantive evidence supporting their eligibility claims.

Mr Justice Garnham's decision establishes several important principles for future ARAP cases. The judgement confirms that decision-makers must apply rigorous standards when evaluating contributions to UK operations, distinguishing between direct security-related work and general support functions. The court's analysis provides clarity on the evidence threshold required to demonstrate qualifying service under the policy.

The ruling has broader implications for the intersection of immigration policy and national security considerations. It underscores the complex assessment procedures governing ARAP, particularly regarding individuals who provided support to UK efforts in conflict zones. The judgement demonstrates the policy's emphasis on measurable contributions to defined national security objectives.

This decision will likely influence how future ARAP applications are assessed, particularly those involving support staff and contractors whose work may not have directly engaged with operational security matters. The judgement provides important guidance on evidential requirements and the scope of qualifying contributions under the policy.

The case reflects the challenging balance between recognising the valuable service provided by Afghan nationals and maintaining strict eligibility criteria designed to ensure the policy serves its intended purpose. The court's careful analysis of the relationship between employment arrangements and substantive contributions offers important precedent for similar cases involving ARAP eligibility determinations.