Following a hearing on 4 March 2026, the High Court ruled that the Secretary of State for Defence’s decision to refuse an application under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP) was unlawful.
What is ARAP?
ARAP was a relocation scheme for Afghan citizens who worked for or with the UK Government in Afghanistan in exposed and meaningful roles, who as a result of those roles, would be at greater risk of being targeted by the Taliban.
The scheme was launched on 1 April 2021 and closed to new applications on 1 July 2025.
Application process
An application under this route consists of two steps:
Step 1: Applicants must first get approval from the Ministry of Defence, who determine whether in fact the Applicant worked for or supported the UK Government in an eligible role, and are therefore eligible for assistance or relocation under the scheme.
Step 2: If accepted, the Applicant must then submit an immigration application to the Home Office.
Current case
The Claimant applied for Step 1 of ARAP on 22 October 2021, on the basis that between 2008 and 2021, he had worked as a Logistics Officer by ‘The Employer’. The Employer was partly funded by the UK and supported the development of Afghanistan’s justice system and rule of law.
The Ministry of Defence (the Defendant) refused the application on 6 June 2025, on the basis that they acknowledged that the Employer carried out an important function, but that it did not directly connect to the UK’s national security objectives in Afghanistan.
Judicial review
The Claimant challenged this by way of Judicial Review on two grounds:
- The Defendant had made an error in concluding that promoting the rule of law in Afghanistan was not part of the UK’s objectives.
- The Defendant had failed to consider key evidence, which proved that the role was directly connected to the UK’s objectives.
During proceedings, the Defendant disclosed that there was an unpublished internal guidance titled ‘Category Four (Cat 4) Operational Guidance- FCDO Sponsorship and Review’, that was being used by decision makers when considering applications under the scheme.
The Claimant then added in a third ground to their challenge, on the basis that this policy should have been published, as it prevents applicants from submitting detailed representations in line with the full requirements of the route.
The case proceeded to a hearing, however two days after, the Defendant withdrew the refusal and confirmed that the guidance had been withdrawn.
Court decision
The Court still proceeded with making a decision, and concluded that:
- When considering applications the Ministry of Defence must first determine whether the matters in issue relate to the UK’s national security objectives, which is a simple yes or no answer.
- Having a functioning justice system in Afghanistan and promoting the rule of law were national security objectives of the UK.
- The Defendant had failed to consider key evidence
- To have unpublished internal guidance was unlawful
As the Defendant withdrew the refusal, the Claimant now waits for a new decision to be made.
Conclusion
This case highlights the importance of having published guidance, to ensure that applicants are able to assess their eligibility correctly and make detailed representations in support of their application.
By : By Abigail Gledhill