High Court to clarify scope of ARAP Category 4 in Afghan relocation challenge

18 Mar 2026|Practice Notes|Add your comment

The case raises key questions about what constitutes a “substantive and positive” contribution to the UK’s military or national security objectives

The High Court has granted permission in a significant challenge concerning the interpretation of the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP). The case is BVD v SSD (AC-2025-LON-002837).

The Legal Issue:

The ARAP scheme predated the collapse of the Afghan government in 2021. In effect, it is a consolidated and enhanced replacement for the relocation schemes for locally employed civilians that had been in place since 2010.

The scheme is split into four categories:

Category 1: Employees of the UK Government in Afghanistan who as a result of their employment are assessed to be at high and imminent risk to life.
Category 2: Those who were directly employed by the UK Government to provide linguistic services AKA interpreters
Category 3: Individuals who are not at high and imminent risk but are eligible for support short of relocation
Category 4: Those who may be eligible for assistance on a case-by-case basis

Under Category 4 of ARAP, an Afghan national may be relocated if, before the Taliban takeover in August 2021, they:

Worked alongside the UK mission in Afghanistan;
Made a substantial and positive contribution to the UK’s military or national security objectives; and
Are now at risk of retribution as a result.

As a result of the subjective nature of a), b) and c), Category 4 applications are decided on a case-by-case basis. The policy defines national security objectives as including countering terrorism, suppressing the narcotics trade and tackling corruption.

Whilst the ARAP scheme was closed to new applicants on 1st July 2025, there are still thousands of applicants who applied before the deadline and now await a final determination of their applications.

Due to the wide range of cases that can potentially fall under Category 4, in my experience, this category has attracted the majority of decisions and applications under the ARAP scheme. Those who may qualify under Category 4 can range from Judges, Triples (Elite Afghan Special Forces) and individuals with varied profiles such as ‘BVD’ (as detailed below).

There is also no definition of the UK mission in Afghanistan nor the UK’s military or national security objectives so applications are open to determination.

Details of Claim

BVD is an Afghan national who was forced to flee Afghanistan alongside his young family after the Taliban takeover in August 2021. Prior to the takeover, he had a long and upstanding career in the Afghan government. His roles included overseeing and delivering UK-funded stabilisation programmes in Helmand and other provinces. He worked directly with UK officials on programme financing, governance and risk management, and was involved in efforts to reduce corruption and improve accountability within government structures.

BVD first applied under ARAP in August 2021 and has continued to pursue his claim in the last 5 ½ years. The current claim is his third judicial review as he has received several flawed decisions that have been withdrawn after legal challenge.

In his third and most recent decision of July 2025, the decision-maker (for the first time) accepted that BVD had worked substantively alongside the UK Government during one of his roles. It was, however, disputed that BVD’s work had contributed to the UK’s national security objectives; it was considered that his work was limited to financial and risk management functions only.

Judicial Review proceedings to challenge this decision were issued, and permission was granted following an oral permission hearing by Mr Justice Mould. A substantive hearing is listed for 19th May 2026.

Analysis

This case is likely to be of some significance to the many applicants who previously worked alongside the UK mission in Afghanistan and have not yet have received decisions on their ARAP applications.

This is particularly true now that most Western nations have ended their Afghan relocation programs. With the ARAP scheme now closed, many individuals in hiding in Afghanistan have been left without hope. Those who are still awaiting decisions on their ARAP applications now have few other options but to await a decision from the UK.

The case will require the Court to clarify how ARAP Category 4 should be interpreted and whether Afghan senior officials who supported UK-funded governance and anti-corruption initiatives fall within its scope.

The case is likely to centre round two points which have been left undefined by both the UK Government and any of the judgments concerning interpretation of ARAP:

What were the UK’s military objectives in Afghanistan
What constitutes ‘a substantive and positive’ contribution

The case may also call into question the approach that the UK government has generally taken in these cases; that is, considering an applicant’s career individually rather than as a whole. BVD argues that his entire (distinguished) career should be considered when assessing whether he has made a ‘substantive and positive’ contribution. The UK government seems to disagree.

Whilst some ARAP applications may be relatively simple to decide because they directly meet the criteria under other categories [AKA interpreters], many applications are as complicated as BVD’s; for example, where an applicant has worked in a number of different roles in the Afghan government and alongside different western missions at different times in their career.

Given the broad scope of the policy, the generally poor quality of decision making as well as the unwillingness of the UK Government to properly define their terms, it is hoped that the Courts will give clear guidance in the case of ‘BVD’ as to who is and is not eligible for ARAP Category 4.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

The High Court has granted permission in a significant challenge concerning the interpretation of the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP). The case is BVD v SSD (AC-2025-LON-002837).

The Legal Issue:

The scheme is split into four categories:

Category 1: Employees of the UK Government in Afghanistan who as a result of their employment are assessed to be at high and imminent risk to life.
Category 2: Those who were directly employed by the UK Government to provide linguistic services AKA interpreters
Category 3: Individuals who are not at high and imminent risk but are eligible for support short of relocation
Category 4: Those who may be eligible for assistance on a case-by-case basis

Under Category 4 of ARAP, an Afghan national may be relocated if, before the Taliban takeover in August 2021, they:

Worked alongside the UK mission in Afghanistan;
Made a substantial and positive contribution to the UK’s military or national security objectives; and
Are now at risk of retribution as a result.

There is also no definition of the UK mission in Afghanistan nor the UK’s military or national security objectives so applications are open to determination.

Details of Claim

High Court to clarify scope of ARAP Category 4 in Afghan relocation challenge

Comments

EHRC updates guidance after For Women Scotland ruling

SRA seeks input on handling complaints

Government reforms aim to expedite infrastructure projects

Wine Enterprise Investment Scheme v Crowe: a Pyrrhic victory leaves the auditor as the successful party on costs

Pattinson v Winsor: committal application over judicial harassment withdrawn on compassionate grounds

R (Castro Guallichico) v Southwark: High Court dismisses challenge to a council's direct offer housing list

Harvey v Heaver: High Court gives first authoritative reading of the fitness for human habitation test

Hillingdon v Springwell Lane Metal Recycling: High Court grants final injunction to halt unlawful scrap yard

Gable Insurance v Dewsall: Court of Appeal upholds finding that a director's excess payments were not dishonest

Irama v Formark: High Court refuses permission to appeal and imposes a civil restraint order

Goldsmith: High Court declines to compel fresh open-prison decision before Parole Board review

CCRC urged to enhance casework assurance

What Anthropic’s model shutdown means for AI law and contracts

SJ Interview: Chris Spelman

Matters of judgement