[2025] UKUT 00090 (IAC)

Applying the ‘Porter’ principle, the Respondent’s reasons in her decision were adequate, as explaining how she resolved the application of the ACRS and why she voided the Applicant’s referral. She explained that the Applicant was not a member of one of the ‘Pitting LOTR’ cohorts. In the light of the interpretation of the policy which has been set out above, the reasons which the Respondent provided engaged with the issues raised by the Applicant’s case which were relevant to the policies and explained why the Applicant was not able to benefit from the policy.

In her decision, she recited that the Applicant was evacuated as a gesture of goodwill and was told that he was expected to make his way home to Nepal. The principal controversial issues were first, eligibility, and second, prioritisation. The stated explanation that the Respondent expected the Applicant to return home answered the Applicant’s eligibility based on a lack of future risk, as did the rejection of any eligibility based on past loyalty to the UK.

The decision cited the two aspects of prioritisation under ‘Pathway 1’ and made clear that as a free-lancer, the Applicant did not fall within either aspect. These comments can only be read in the context of the lack of ineligibility because the Applicant was not at future risk.