High Court rules on Afghan judge's ARAP eligibility

Introduction

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review application brought by an Afghan national, formerly a judge, challenging his ineligibility for relocation under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP). The case, presided over by Mrs Justice Farbey, centred on the claimant's contention that the decisions made by the Secretary of State for Defence were unreasonable and procedurally flawed.

Background

The claimant, who had a public profile as a judge in Afghanistan before the Taliban's rise to power in August 2021, sought judicial review of two key decisions. The first was the decision made on 22 August 2023, which deemed him ineligible for ARAP support. The second was a review decision on 8 April 2024, which upheld the initial ineligibility decision.

Grounds of Challenge

The claimant's grounds for challenge included alleged failures to consider relevant evidence, consideration of irrelevant matters, failure to make necessary enquiries, and a narrow interpretation of ARAP requirements. The case was argued by Tim Owen KC and Emma Daykin for the claimant, with Lord Murray representing the defendant and interested party.

Key Issues

The claimant's counsel focused on three main points: the alleged inadequacy of evidence supporting the claimant's work alongside a UK Government department, the interpretation of ARAP's Category 4 criteria, and the failure to refer the case to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) as per ARAP's Standard Operating Procedures.

The ARAP Scheme

ARAP was established to assist Afghan citizens who worked with the UK Government in exposed roles, potentially offering relocation to the UK. The claimant's application was primarily assessed under Category 4, which requires individuals to have worked closely with UK Government departments, contributing to military or national security objectives.

Judgment

Mrs Justice Farbey found that the claimant's application lacked evidence of working alongside a UK Government department, a key requirement under Category 4. The court also held that the claimant's role as a civil judge did not automatically qualify him for ARAP, as the policy requires a specific case-by-case evaluation.

Procedural Considerations

The court addressed the claimant's argument regarding procedural errors, particularly the non-referral to the FCDO. Mrs Justice Farbey concluded that the Standard Operating Procedures were not legally binding and that the defendant's decision not to refer the case was reasonable given the lack of evidence.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the claim, affirming the decisions of the Secretary of State for Defence. The judgment underscores the importance of substantial evidence and clear alignment with ARAP's criteria for eligibility.

Learn More

For more information on UK immigration policies and judicial review processes, see BeCivil's guide to UK Immigration Law.

Copyright & permissions