Background
MUF, a former judge of Kabul’s Anti-Terrorism Court, applied under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy to relocate to the United Kingdom with his immediate family. The Secretary of State refused the application on the ground that MUF had not shown that he worked in Afghanistan alongside, in partnership with, or closely supporting and assisting a UK government department, as required by ARAP 3.6 condition 1(iii).
An earlier judicial review, in which MUF was identified as ACG, resulted in the quashing of a prior refusal and reconsideration of his application. The Secretary of State nevertheless refused the application again in a fourth review decision dated 9 February 2026. MUF challenged that decision on five grounds, alleging legal misinterpretation, irrational distinctions from other Anti-Terrorism Court judges, irrational treatment of the evidence, procedural unfairness, and failure to follow the earlier judgment.
The evidence showed that MUF and his family faced a real risk of death, torture, or other serious harm if they were not relocated. The High Court therefore applied heightened scrutiny to the decision and its reasoning.
The Court’s Holding
Mrs Justice Eady granted permission and allowed the claim on ground 3. The fourth refusal did not adequately address MUF’s evidence that Anti-Terrorism Court judges supplied reports about their work to British officials, potentially through court directors. Such reports might have supported the FCDO’s effort to establish an effective end-to-end terrorism prosecution system and could therefore have been relevant to whether MUF worked alongside, in partnership with, or closely supported and assisted the FCDO.
The Court did not decide that MUF satisfied the ARAP criterion. It held that the Secretary of State’s holistic assessment was unlawfully flawed because the decision did not explain what conclusion had been reached about the alleged reports or demonstrate that this potentially favorable factor had been properly considered. The Court otherwise refused permission on grounds 1, 4, and 5, and granted permission but dismissed ground 2.
The Court declared the fourth review decision unlawful, quashed it, and remitted MUF’s application for a fresh ARAP review decision. Subject to the specified appeal-related triggers, the Secretary of State must remake the decision within six weeks.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling does not establish that MUF is eligible for relocation; it requires the Secretary of State to reconsider his application lawfully.
- Where an ARAP applicant faces a real risk of death, torture, or serious harm, heightened scrutiny requires the decision’s reasoning to show that every potentially favorable factor was properly considered.
- An Afghan judge’s assistance to a broader institutional relationship with the UK may be relevant to ARAP eligibility even if judicial independence was maintained and communications passed through other court officials.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that ARAP eligibility is a fact-specific, holistic inquiry. Being an Afghan judge, even one who heard terrorism cases, is not sufficient by itself, but decision-makers must examine the substance of the applicant’s work and any institutional links with UK departments.
It also underscores the limits of judicial review: the Court identified a material gap in the reasoning and ordered reconsideration, while leaving the substantive eligibility determination to the Secretary of State.