ArticleSuccessful challenge by Master’s student to asylum accommodation move

In a significant ruling, an Iraqi national and Master’s student challenged the Home Office’s decision to move him from his asylum accommodation. The case, RMO v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1826 (Admin), highlights the Home Office’s need to consider individual circumstances before enforcing relocation.

Background of the case

The claimant, an Iraqi national, arrived in the UK via the Channel in October 2022 and immediately sought asylum. In Iraq, he worked as a lecturer teaching Kurdology and faced severe threats after translating a book about Kurdish history into English. Following multiple threats, including a bullet sent to his home and a hit-and-run incident, he fled Iraq fearing for his life.

Upon arrival in the UK, he was placed in asylum accommodation in Norwich. His academic journey took a positive turn when, on 15 September 2023, he was awarded a highly competitive scholarship to study a full-time Master’s in History at the University of East Anglia, starting on 25 September 2023. However, his stability was threatened when, on 15 December 2023, he received a “notice to quit” indicating his transfer to Walsall, scheduled just four days later.

Summary of the legal challenge

The claimant’s legal team promptly sent a pre-action letter, detailing the adverse impact that the move would have on his studies. Despite this, on 20 December 2023, the Home Office upheld the decision to relocate him. The judicial review challenged this decision, arguing that the Home Office had failed to consider the claimant’s unique and exceptional circumstances adequately.

High Court’s decision

The High Court ruled in favour of the claimant, emphasizing the lack of consideration for the claimant’s circumstances in the Home Office’s decision letter. The court found that the decision exhibited a rigid approach, failing to assess whether the claimant’s specific needs could allow for temporary accommodation until the end of his course. The decision-making process did not demonstrate an open mind, which is crucial in considering exceptional individual situations.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the Home Office did not properly apply its policy and failed to assess the claimant’s circumstances adequately. This oversight was deemed unreasonable in terms of public law, suggesting that the decision was not compatible with the substance of the policy. The judicial review concluded that the decision letter did not sufficiently address the points raised by the claimant, leading to the successful challenge.

Consequently, the Home Secretary was ordered to remake the decision, explicitly addressing the claimant’s specific circumstances. The new decision must consider whether temporary asylum accommodation in Norwich could be provided until the end of the claimant’s course. If not, a detailed explanation must be provided.

Our take on the ruling

This case underscores the critical importance of personalised assessments in asylum decisions. The Home Office’s failure to engage meaningfully with the claimant’s circumstances resulted in unnecessary legal proceedings and potential disruption to the claimant’s education. This ruling serves as a reminder that rigid application of policies without consideration of individual circumstances can lead to unjust outcomes and legal challenges.

The Home Office must adopt a more nuanced approach in its decision-making processes, ensuring that policies are applied flexibly and fairly. This will not only prevent similar legal challenges in the future but also uphold the rights and dignity of asylum seekers, many of whom have already endured significant trauma.

Get in touch:  For a comprehensive understanding of your options or queries on UK immigration matters, contact GigaLegal Solicitors at 02074067654 or click here to book a no-obligation consultation with an immigration expert.