Afghan judge succeeds in High Court challenge to refusal of resettlement

A judge from Afghanistan has successfully challenged a refusal to bring him to the UK under the Afghan Assistance and Relocations Programme, meaning that the decision will need to be remade. The case is R (ACG) v Secretary of State for Defence [2025] EWHC 2472 (Admin).

The claimant was a judge in Afghanistan for over 20 years and between 2011 and 2016 he sat in the Anti-Terrorism Court. At the time the Taliban took over he was hearing criminal cases, a significant number of which involved members of the Taliban. Evidence was given to the effect that the UK government provided a lot of assistance to the Anti-Terrorism Court.

On 14 February 2025 the claimant’s application under the Afghan Assistance and Relocations Programme was rejected on the grounds. The decision said that he did not satisfy condition 1, namely the requirement that a person “worked in Afghanistan alongside a UK Government department, in partnership with or closely supporting and assisting that department”.

The claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The grounds were as follows:

Ground 1 contends that the defendant erred in the approach taken to the scope and meaning of “working alongside” and/or “in partnership with” and/or “assisting a UK Government Department” within Category 4 of ARAP. As a result, the claimant asserts that the defendant failed lawfully to consider his evidence in the light of the policy scheme. Ground 2 alleges that the defendant failed lawfully to consider the claimant’s evidence cumulatively and/or failed to apply anxious scrutiny to that evidence. Ground 3 submits that there has been a failure to have rational regard to the “independent evidence” of NAR. Ground 4 alleges that the second review decision is tainted by what is said to be the defendant’s failure to conduct an adequate review of material that was capable of corroborating the claimant’s stated position.

The court found for the claimant on all four grounds and the decision was quashed, with a new decision to be made “no doubt expeditiously”.