C1 & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 2)

A mandate-refugee resettlement policy must be construed purposively and flexibly, having regard to its objective of finding durable solutions while preserving family unity and requiring close ties with the United Kingdom. Decision-makers must apply the policy through a structured sequence addressing refugee status, present circumstances, the most appropriate country of resettlement, family ties, historical links, exceptional circumstances and any cogent reason for departing from a UNHCR recommendation.

They must consider composite family applications together, avoid irrelevant comparisons and speculative findings, and take account of material changes before finalising a refusal. Failure to consider the relevant stages, material facts and the duty to co-operate with the UNHCR renders the decision unlawful.

The claimants, an Iranian mother and her two adult children, were recognised by the UNHCR as mandate refugees in Turkey and recommended for resettlement in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State accepted the third claimant’s application but refused those of the first and second claimants, maintaining the refusals after reconsideration.

The claimants challenged the composite decisions on the grounds that the Mandate Refugee Policy had been misapplied, that the Secretary of State had failed to co-operate with the UNHCR, and that their rights under article 8 had been infringed. The central issues were the proper construction and sequential application of the policy and the significance of the successful application of one member of the family.

1. The decisions were quashed. The Secretary of State had applied the Mandate Refugee Policy unlawfully by failing to follow its structured decision-making process, taking irrelevant matters into account, omitting relevant matters and providing no adequate reasoning.
2. The policy had to be given its objective meaning. Because it was intended to operate in partnership with the UNHCR and to secure durable solutions while preserving family unity, ambiguities were to be resolved purposively and flexibly rather than strictly or rigidly. The UK Country Chapter in the Resettlement Handbook prevailed over the withdrawn and less satisfactory UKBA version where their wording differed.
3. The policy required sequential consideration of: whether the applicant was a mandate refugee; the circumstances in the present country of refuge; whether the United Kingdom was the most appropriate country; close family ties; historical links; exceptional circumstances; specified wider family relationships in exceptional cases; and whether there were cogent reasons not to give effect to the UNHCR recommendation.
4. The applications had been submitted together on the same facts and concerned a family unit. They were composite applications and had to be considered together. The acceptance of the third claimant’s application was a material change requiring reconsideration of the refusals concerning the first and second claimants.
5. The Secretary of State had failed to consider whether the United Kingdom was the most appropriate country of resettlement, had treated the absence of exceptional circumstances by comparison with unspecified refugees as decisive without evidential foundation, and had treated the historical-links stage as limited to periods spent as a student. The policy required consideration of the applicant’s entire history of actual and potential close ties.
6. Family relationships had to be assessed by reference to the relationship between the applicant and the relative to be joined. The first claimant could qualify through her relationship with her mother over 65. Mutual dependence between mother and daughter was not an irrelevant factor. The decision-maker also had to reconsider the second claimant’s position in light of her husband’s subsequent presence in the United Kingdom, even temporarily.
7. The duty to co-operate with the UNHCR required careful consideration of its recommendation. The decision-maker had to identify cogent reasons before declining to give effect to it, particularly where refoulement, precarious residence and the absence of another durable solution were in issue.
8. The article 8 ground was not determined because the claimants succeeded on the policy and co-operation grounds. Permission was given to argue the additional grounds, but no order was made on article 8.