A claimant has successfully challenged a move from his asylum accommodation after a failure on the part of the Home Office to engage with the evidence as to why the move was unsuitable because of his particular circumstances. In his case those circumstances were that he had won a scholarship to study a Masters in History and would be unable to complete this if moved. The case is RMO v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1826 (Admin).

Background

The claimant is an Iraqi national who arrived in the UK via the Channel in October 2022 and claimed asylum on arrival. In Iraq he was a lecturer at an educational institute where he taught Kurdology. In 2021 he translated a book about Kurdish history into English, some people took issue with this and he received threats including a bullet in the post. He was also hit by a car. This is what drove him to leave Iraq.

He was provided with asylum accommodation in Norwich and on 15 September 2023 he was granted a highly competitive scholarship to the University of Sanctuary as operated by the University of East Anglia, to do a full time history Masters. This is a 12 month course that requires attendance on campus. It started on 25 September 2023 and on 15 December 2023 the claimant was sent a “notice to quit” advising him that he would be moved to Walsall four days later.

In response, a pre action letter was sent on the claimant’s behalf, setting out evidence of the impact the move would have on his studies. On 20 December 2023 the decision to move the claimant was upheld and that was the decision under challenge in this judicial review. It was argued that the Home Secretary had failed to take the claimant’s specific and exceptional circumstances into account.

High Court’s decision

The High Court noted that “What is striking in this decision letter is that there is not a single relevant circumstance cited”. The court said at [34] that:

The court finds force in the claimant’s submission that the decision letter exhibits an impermissible rigidity of thought and approach by the defendant and that the defendant did not keep an open mind. That openness required him to consider whether the claimant’s specific circumstances and needs permitted temporary arrangements to be made until the end of his course.

and at [44] that:

The decision letter does leave the court with a “substantial doubt” whether the policy has been properly considered and applied by the defendant. This is not so much an example of the defendant departing from his policy without good reason as not having properly considered the clear terms of his policy and not having assessed the individual circumstances of the defendant in relation to it. This is unreasonable in recognised public law terms. I have heard nothing to persuade me that the decision was compatible with the substance of the Policy.

The judicial review therefore succeeded and the Home Secretary was ordered to remake the decision, this time “giving written reasons which directly address the points raised by the claimant”. Specifically the new decision must address whether temporary accommodation can be provided to the claimant in Norwich until the end of course. If not, an explanation of this must be provided.

Conclusion

It is frustrating to see that this case was ever necessary, and I am frankly surprised that it made it to a full hearing. Any sensible engagement from the Home Office at an earlier stage could have avoided these proceedings. I hope that this ongoing threat to his living situation has not caused too much disruption to the claimant’s studies.