CHD v Secretary of State for Defence: High Court quashes Afghan relocation refusal over error of fact

The High Court has delivered a significant judgement in CHD v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 566 (Admin), concerning the refusal of an Afghan national's application for relocation to the UK under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). Mr Justice Saini exercised his discretion to hand down a full judgement notwithstanding the Defendant's last-minute withdrawal of the challenged decision, on the basis that the circumstances were capable of affecting other ARAP cases.

The Claimant, granted anonymity, had worked as a Logistics Officer for a UK-funded Afghan rule of law institution between 2008 and 2021. His ARAP application — submitted in October 2021 — was refused in June 2025 on the basis that his work had not made a substantive and positive contribution to the UK's national security objectives under Condition 2 of Category 4. He and his family faced serious risk of Taliban violence and he remained in hiding at the time of the hearing.

The error of fact

The central finding was that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) Assessor, and by extension the Ministry of Defence's Defence Afghan Relocations and Resettlement team, had proceeded on a materially incorrect factual basis: that promoting a functioning justice system and the rule of law in Afghanistan did not form part of, nor was directly connected to, the UK's national security objectives at the relevant time.

Saini J held this was plainly wrong. Drawing on a substantial body of historical evidence — including FCO memoranda to parliamentary committees, the UK's National Security Strategy (2010), the Building Stability Overseas Strategy (2011), the Enduring Strategic Partnership with Afghanistan signed in 2012, and Prime Ministerial statements — the court found the connection between the rule of law and national security to be, in the words adopted from R (MP1) v Secretary of State for Defence [2024] EWHC 410 (Admin), "self-evident". The court rejected the Defendant's submission that identifying national security objectives is an evaluative executive exercise attracting Wednesbury deference: the question of what the UK's historical objectives were at a given point in time is a question of fact, with a single correct answer, for the court.

This error was held to be material. Because the Assessor had concluded that the employing organisation was unlikely to have contributed to national security objectives, the Claimant was prejudiced before his individual role was even considered.

The judgement also upheld a process rationality challenge. The reasons disclosed no recognition that the employer's grant documentation expressly referenced counter-narcotics and anti-corruption activities, and failed to engage adequately with substantial evidence — from the Claimant's supervisor, the organisation's President and Vice President, and a former FCO Director — characterising the Claimant's role as senior, important, and indispensable.

The unpublished guidance

Following service of the Claimant's skeleton argument, the Defendant disclosed internal FCDO caseworker guidance on Condition 2 assessments — guidance that had not been published and had been applied in this case. Saini J granted permission to challenge this on the basis of R (Lumba) v SSHD [2012] 1 AC 245 as applied in R (TPL1) v SSD [2025] EWHC 1729 (Admin). The guidance specified, among other things, that a programme was unlikely to meet Condition 2 unless HMG project documentation explicitly named national security objectives in its outputs — a threshold an applicant could not meaningfully address without knowing the guidance existed.

The withdrawal and its wider implications

At the close of the hearing, Saini J invited the Defendant to confirm whether it was truly his case that the rule of law had not been a national security objective. The Defendant was unable to maintain the position. A withdrawal note followed on 6 March 2026 confirming: the decision would be retaken; the question of whether the rule of law constitutes a national security objective for ARAP Category 4 purposes is under review; the unpublished guidance is withdrawn and will be published; and, if the Defendant maintains that the rule of law is not a national security objective, evidence will be provided for use in future proceedings.

The judgement is directly relevant to pending ARAP Category 4 applications, particularly those involving employees of rule of law, governance, and justice-sector organisations funded by the FCO or DFID. It confirms that the historical identification of UK national security objectives is a question of law and fact for the court, not an evaluative discretion of the executive, and that internal ARAP guidance of this character must be published.

Copyright & permissions