[2025] UKUT 00090 (IAC)

The Applicant says that the reasons given in the impugned decision were inadequate, because they focused on his not being an Afghan national; not having been directly employed or contracted by HM Government or UK Armed Forces; and not being “eligible within either of the two parameters noted above as the ACRS priorities.” (B/[259]). The decision had cited the priorities of “those who have assisted the UK efforts in Afghanistan and stood up for values such as democracy etc.” and “vulnerable people,” without explaining why the Applicant had not assisted the UK or was not vulnerable. The decision had made no reference to the principles set out in §23 of the ARIPS. The decision had not addressed the “principal controversial issues,” in the ‘Porter’ sense (South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter (No. 2) [2004] UKHL 33).