AC-2025-LON-001440 - [2025] EWHC 2472 (Admin)

I can now turn to the grounds of challenge in the present case. Ground 1 contends that the defendant erred in the approach taken to the scope and meaning of “working alongside” and/or “in partnership with” and/or “assisting a UK Government Department” within Category 4 of ARAP. As a result, the claimant asserts that the defendant failed lawfully to consider his evidence in the light of the policy scheme. Ground 2 alleges that the defendant failed lawfully to consider the claimant’s evidence cumulatively and/or failed to apply anxious scrutiny to that evidence. Ground 3 submits that there has been a failure to have rational regard to the “independent evidence” of NAR. Ground 4 alleges that the second review decision is tainted by what is said to be the defendant’s failure to conduct an adequate review of material that was capable of corroborating the claimant’s stated position.