HZ & Ors., R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A decision to move beneficiaries of a resettlement scheme between temporary bridging accommodation must be based on reasonable enquiries and regard to relevant considerations, including the likely effects on education and employment. The required level of enquiry is context-specific. A decision-maker may take account of the scale and urgency of the accommodation operation, available services, migration pressures, cost and the prospects of settled accommodation.

Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 did not apply to the provision of bridging accommodation to persons already granted indefinite leave to remain. Even if it applied, the enquiries and consideration undertaken would have been sufficient. General commitments to provide support, and policies concerning settled accommodation, did not constitute or govern a policy for replacement bridging accommodation.

The claimants were Afghan nationals relocated to the United Kingdom under the ARAP or ACRS resettlement schemes. They had indefinite leave to remain and were living in temporary bridging accommodation at a hotel in Southwark. When the hotel operator terminated its contract, the Secretary of State offered replacement bridging accommodation in Manchester.

The claimants challenged those decisions on the grounds of inadequate enquiry and appraisal, failure to comply with policy, and breach of the duty concerning children’s welfare under the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. They relied particularly on the effects of the proposed move on schooling, employment, health and support networks. The central issues were whether the Secretary of State had undertaken sufficient enquiries, had properly considered the relevant matters, and was bound by published commitments concerning accommodation and resettlement.

1. Outcome. The claims for judicial review were dismissed. The issue was the legality of the decisions, not whether the court considered a different accommodation arrangement preferable.
2. General public law duties. The Secretary of State had to take reasonable steps to inform herself, consider relevant matters, avoid irrelevant matters and serious logical or methodological errors, and reach a decision within the range of reasonable decisions. The intensity of enquiry was context-specific. The court was not entitled to intervene merely because further enquiries might have been desirable.
3. Section 55. The duty in section 55 concerned functions in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality. That ordinarily meant functions concerning entry, abode or removal, including powers facilitating immigration control. Bridging accommodation for persons with indefinite leave to remain was not sufficiently connected with immigration. Unlike asylum support, it was not parasitic upon a pending immigration decision, and the Secretary of State had no power to require the claimants to reside at a particular address. The duty therefore did not apply.
4. Education and welfare. The likely effect of moving children between areas was an obviously relevant consideration. The Secretary of State had evidence about local education provision, had consulted Manchester City Council about accepting the cohort, and considered the further information supplied by the claimants. A reasonable decision-maker could regard those enquiries as sufficient. The same conclusion followed on the alternative assumption that section 55 applied. The decision letters recognised disruption, considered the school evidence, and addressed safety, local authority support and the availability of education.
5. Employment. Employment was also relevant. In relation to FM, the Secretary of State was entitled to conclude, on the information supplied, that her skills and experience could assist her in finding comparable work in Manchester and that employment support was available nationally.
6. Policy. General statements that the Government was committed to supporting resettled Afghans were too general to constitute a policy governing bridging accommodation. The more specific policy concerning the matching of settled accommodation could not be transposed to replacement bridging accommodation, because the processes differed materially in urgency, scale, available facilities and local authority capacity.

The judgment records that permission was initially refused, but was later granted on renewal by Fordham J on 29 November 2022. The claims were then determined at first instance by the High Court (Administrative Court). The claims were dismissed.