Background
CBC and GSD are Afghan citizens who worked as security guards at the British Embassy in Kabul. They applied for relocation under Category 4 of the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy, which required them to show that their work made a substantive and positive contribution toward UK military or national-security objectives in Afghanistan. The government accepted that each claimant satisfied Condition 1 through his contracted work for or alongside a UK government department, but found that neither satisfied Condition 2.
CBC remained in Afghanistan with his family. GSD had relocated to the United Kingdom through the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, but pursued his ARAP application because two adult children remained in Afghanistan and his son would automatically qualify as an immediate family member if GSD were found eligible. The claimants challenged the refusal decisions on four grounds, including the government’s failure to publish Category 4 operational guidance, an alleged policy excluding embassy guards, misinterpretation or fettering of discretion, and irrationality.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Garnham granted permission, allowed the claims on the unpublished-guidance ground, quashed both ARAP refusals, and remitted the applications for reconsideration. The Category 4 criteria were broad, while the internal operational guidance identified the evidential target in clearer and more specific terms. Although its examples did not directly concern embassy guards, they could have helped the claimants understand the evidence and representations needed. Withholding that guidance therefore denied them the transparency required for a lawful decision-making process.
The Court rejected the remaining grounds. The evidence did not establish an operative policy categorically excluding British Embassy security guards, nor did it show that caseworkers applied the January 2022 information note or fettered their discretion. The decisions were not irrational merely because the claimants had performed important and dangerous security work: decision-makers were entitled to focus on each applicant’s personal contribution to UK objectives, while also considering the role of the institution and employer. The Court could not conclude that the same outcomes were highly likely had the guidance been disclosed, because disclosure might have enabled materially stronger submissions.
Key Takeaways
- Internal guidance explaining how broad ARAP eligibility criteria are applied must be disclosed when it would enable applicants to make informed and meaningful representations.
- Employment at an institution that advanced UK military or national-security objectives does not by itself establish Category 4 eligibility; the applicant’s individual contribution remains central.
- The Court found no blanket exclusion of British Embassy Kabul guards and upheld the rationality of the substantive evaluative approach, but required both applications to be decided again through a transparent process.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that applicants affected by high-stakes relocation decisions must be told the operative framework used to apply broadly framed eligibility rules. An agency cannot avoid procedural unfairness merely by saying that internal guidance was not decisive or lacked an example matching the applicant’s precise job.
The ruling does not establish that embassy security guards qualify under ARAP. Instead, it gives CBC and GSD an opportunity to make further submissions within 28 days and requires the government to reconsider their applications in light of the disclosed guidance and the Court’s judgment.