Important case on interpretation of ARAP Category 4
The High Court today gave judgment in an important case about the interpretation of Category 4 of ARAP, in R (CHD) v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 566 (Admin).
The Claimant challenged the rejection of his application for relocation under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). The High court upheld his challenge, concluding that the decision was unlawful. Immediately after the substantive hearing, the Defendant withdrew the decision and agreed to retake it urgently.
Condition 2 of Category 4 of ARAP requires the decision maker to determine whether the applicant’s work or provision of services “made a substantive and positive contribution to the UK’s military objectives or national security objectives (which includes counter terrorism, counter narcotics and anti-corruption objectives) with respect to Afghanistan.”
The Judge decided that the rule of law and having a functioning justice system were a national security objective in respect of Afghanistan. This finding is an important one for any Afghan national working in that field, whose ARAP application is outstanding.
The Judge’s reasons for concluding that the decision in this case was unlawful, included that the Defendant made an error of fact. The decision-makers considered that having a functioning justice system and the rule of law were not part of or directly connected to the UK’s national security objectives. That was wrong.
Further, the Defendant failed to show by his reasons that he took into account various factors which told in favour of the Claimant’s application, including the key role the Claimant played in his organisation.
In the course of the proceedings, the Defendant disclosed previously unpublished guidance entitled Category Four (Cat 4) Operational Guidance- FCDO Sponsorship and Review. This substantially narrowed the circumstances in which it was likely that an applicant would be found eligible under Category 4. Material parts of the Guidance are quoted in the Judgment at §83.
The Claimant argued that this Guidance, and the decision made by applying it, were unlawful, primarily because the Guidance was unpublished. Just after the substantive hearing, the Defendant agreed to publish and to withdraw that Guidance. The Judge said the Defendant was right to do so, and had it been necessary to decide the issue, he would have been minded to accept the Claimant’s submissions.
Adam Straw KC represented the Claimant, leading Miranda Butler of Landmark Chambers, and instructed by Bindmans LLP.
