BUU1, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence

Under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, “elevated risk” requires an increase above the relevant baseline risk that results from the eligible principal’s work for or with the UK Government. The baseline may include risks arising from the activities or characteristics of other family members.

In assessing vulnerability and exceptional family dependence, decision-makers must consider specific risks faced by family members even where those risks do not arise from the principal’s work. Such risks may affect both the level of dependence and the ability to obtain care or protection from outside Afghanistan.

A decision is irrational where its reasoning contains a logical error, critical gap or unexplained evidential leap. An ARR assessment must consider whether the principal held a high-profile role, including an equivalent-risk role, rather than merely whether that role appeared on the leaked dataset.

BUU1, an Afghan national and former interpreter for British military forces, had been relocated to the United Kingdom under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy. He sought relocation for his mother and six adult siblings in Afghanistan.

The Review Panel upheld a refusal under the policy’s provisions concerning elevated risk and exceptional family dependence. It considered that the evidence did not establish a sufficient connection between BUU1’s former role and the family members’ risks, and that their adult status, male relatives and BUU1’s remote financial support negatived exceptional dependence. It also considered the February 2022 data breach and concluded that it created no elevated risk.

BUU1 sought judicial review on the ground that the reasoning process was irrational.

1. The claim was allowed. The Review Panel’s decision that the additional family members were ineligible for relocation was unlawful.
2. The court applied anxious scrutiny, while recognising that an expedited administrative process may use brief reasons which should not be examined with excessive forensic intensity. A reasoning process is irrational where it contains a logical error, critical gap or unexplained evidential leap: see R (KP) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2025] EWHC 370 (Admin) at [56], and R (Wells) v Parole Board [2019] EWHC 2710 (Admin) at [33].
3. For ARAP purposes, “elevated” risk means risk greater than the applicable baseline as a result of the principal’s former activities or role. The baseline may be the general risk in Afghanistan, or a higher risk arising from the previous activities or characteristics of other family members. The Panel was entitled to conclude that the evidence did not permit the risks arising from BUU1’s role to be disentangled from risks arising from his brothers’ roles.
4. The Panel acted irrationally on vulnerability and dependency. It considered the threats only under elevated risk and failed to consider whether risks unconnected with BUU1’s former activities created vulnerabilities leading to exceptional family dependence on him. The policy did not exclude such risks from the vulnerability assessment.
5. The Panel also acted irrationally in its treatment of the data breach. The ARR guidance required consideration of whether BUU1 had held a high-profile role, including an unlisted role placing him at equivalent risk to identified high-profile roles. The Panel confined its reasoning to the absence of his job role from the dataset and failed to address that necessary question.