![[2025] UKUT 00090 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png){kind=logo}
The Respondent’s case
The Respondent’s case
The Respondent says that the impugned decision made clear that the Applicant’s nationality was not the sole basis of voiding his case. TCNs can be considered, but mainly only where they are the immediate family members of those at risk. The principal controversial issue was whether the Applicant was at particular risk, and the decision referred to those who had assisted the UK efforts, etc, or vulnerable groups, even if it did not mention §23 of the ARIPS specifically. The decision repeated (at B/[259]) that:
“This [evacuation as a gesture of goodwill] came with the understanding, communicated verbally to your client, that once in the UK your client would arrange and be offered support for onward travel to the country of their nationality, in this case Nepal.”
The clear implication of this was that the Applicant could return home without risk, and this was a context and part of the reason for his ineligibility. The priorities in ‘Pathway 1’ had to be read in that context.
- Heading
- Decision
- The Respondent’s initial rejection of the Applicant for ACRS
- The Respondent’s decision under challenge
- The relevant passages of the ACRS and ARIPS
- The Applicant’s application for judicial review and the grant of permission
- Ground (1) - Interpretation of the ACRS and whether the Respondent misapplied it
- The Respondent’s case
- Legal principles - Interpretation of policy
- Conclusions on Ground (1)
- Ground (2) – the adequacy of the reasons in the Respondent’s decision
- The Respondent’s case
- Legal principles on sufficiency of decision-making reasons
- Conclusions on Ground (2) and the adequacy of the reasons in the decision
- Ground (3) – arguable perversity based on inconsistent decisions
- The Respondent’s case
- Legal principles on irrationality because of inconsistency of treatment and legitimate expectations
- Conclusions