Decision to refuse family members of former Afghan employee of FCDO quashed on the basis of unfairness

2 Dec 2024

The Claimant was successful in his claim for judicial review of the decision of the FCDO to refuse his family members relocation to the UK as Additional Family Members under the Afghan relocation and assistance policy (ARAP) and ex-gratia scheme (EGS) policy.  The judgment in R(QA) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 3064 was handed down on 29 November 2024 and found that the Claimant had been deprived of a fair decision.

Due to a combination of factors including unnecessary secrecy around the identities of panel members, the critical feature being that an FCDO panel member made a witness statement in the proceedings, strongly defending an earlier decision, whilst wrongly giving the impression that she had not been a party to that decision and commenting that fresh material that would go before a future panel (that she subsequently was a part of) would not make a difference to the outcome.  The witness expressed a clear and firm view on the application, which raised the possibility of predetermination.  When taken together with the other important features of the decision-making process, “the fair-minded observer would conclude that there is a possibility that [the FCDO panel member] had predetermined the outcome.” §43

The Claimant was represented by Duncan Lewis led by Raman Kumar and counsel team Emma Daykin and Matthew Moriarty members of One Pump Court Chambers public law and immigration teams.

The Defendant was represented by Cathryn McGahey KC and Julie Anderson.

The Special Advocates were Tim Buley KC and Bilal Rawat.