RMO v Secretary Of State for the Home Department

A public authority applying an accommodation-allocation policy must genuinely consider the applicant’s individual circumstances and needs. A policy must guide discretion without becoming an inflexible rule. Where temporary accommodation could address a temporary need, that option must be considered and, if rejected, cogent reasons must be given. A decision must explain the principal relevant factors, the weight given to them and why the evidence does not establish an accommodation need. Article 8 may be engaged by the institutional, educational and social ties developed through postgraduate study, although the question depends on the facts. Any decision must address engagement and proportionality.

The claimant, an Iraqi asylum seeker receiving accommodation support, challenged the refusal of his request to remain in Norwich while completing a one-year Master’s degree at the University of East Anglia. The Secretary of State relied on the no-choice accommodation principle, the supply of accommodation and policy guidance concerning educational requests, which principally addressed children approaching public examinations.

The claimant argued that the decision failed to consider his individual circumstances, the evidence about the effect of relocation on his studies and the possibility of temporary accommodation. He also argued that relocation would disproportionately interfere with his Article 8 rights. The central issues were whether the policy had been lawfully applied and whether the decision adequately addressed Article 8.

1. Ground 1 allowed. The decision dated 20 December 2023 was quashed. The decision letter stated that the claimant’s circumstances had been carefully considered but identified no relevant circumstance beyond the fact that the request was educational. It did not explain why the claimant’s evidence did not establish an accommodation need.
2. A policy may guide the exercise of a statutory discretion, but the decision-maker must remain willing to consider something new. The educational guidance concerning schoolchildren could not be applied rigidly to a postgraduate course with a distinctive curriculum and regular attendance requirements. The Secretary of State had to keep an open mind and consider the claimant’s specific circumstances.
3. The possibility of granting temporary accommodation in Norwich until completion of the Master’s course was an obvious option under the policy and section 96(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The court did not decide that temporary accommodation had to be granted, but it had to be considered and any refusal explained by cogent reasons.
4. The reasoning was inadequate. The decision did not identify the principal factors, explain the treatment of the supporting evidence, or show how individual circumstances were distinguished from mere preference. The absence of adequate reasons gave rise to substantial doubt whether the policy had been properly understood and applied.
5. Article 8 was capable of being engaged. A student’s involvement with a course and institution may form an important aspect of private life, depending on the facts. The Secretary of State had failed to consider whether Article 8 was engaged and, if so, to conduct a proportionality analysis.
6. The claim was allowed. The Secretary of State was required to remake the decision with written reasons addressing temporary accommodation and Article 8. Dispersal was restrained for 14 days after service of the sealed order. Costs were awarded to the claimant on the standard basis.