RMO v Secretary of State for the Home Department

RMO v Secretary of State for the Home Department

High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

19 July 2024

[2024] EWHC 1826 (Admin) 

Introduction

The claimant, referred to as RMO, is an asylum seeker who requested that the Home Office provide accommodation in Norwich to facilitate the completion of their master’s degree. This request was however denied on December 20, 2023, by the defendant, The Secretary of State for the Home Department. Judicial Review was sought by RMO.

Facts

RMO, an Iraqi national in their early 30s who arrived in the United Kingdom via a small boat, challenged the decision to relocate on the grounds that it would disrupt future prospects and education. He argued that the rejection of his request of his request to remain in his current location of Norwich failed properly consider relevant polices. A key aspect of this contention was the breach of the right to private life[1]. Initially, RMO was granted asylum support, including accommodation in a hotel, to facilitate the completion of his degree. However, in December 2023, he received a relocation notice to Walsall, and his application to remain in the city was denied.

Arguments

RMO contended that the relocation, as a result of the asylum accommodation policy, posed a significant potential risk to the disruption of his education and future prospects. He argued that the decision taken was inconsistent with the Home Office’s its own policies. The claimant argued that there was a lack of adequate reasoning and the appropriate procedures, that would take all the circumstances into account, was disregarded and demonstrated an unbalanced ridged approach. The impact of the decision was seen as inflexible. By ignoring the possibility of reasonable exceptions, such as the pursuit of education, RMO’s first argument.

The next argument to be raised was the violation of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights[2]. RMO raised that his right to private life was breached by the decision of the Secretary of State. the claimant submitted that the Secretary of State failed to conduct proportionality assessment which led to the impact of the decision to be disproportionate. As it was not necessary to transfer, the claimant believed it was not justified.

The lack of reasoning and transparency was another argument raised by RMO. It was contended that there was a lack of reasoning and explanation as to why the request to stay in Norwich was rejected. If there was indeed a lack of clear communication and transparency, the action would be indeed unfair and unjustified.

This led to the argument that there was an impact on RMO’s mental health. It was contended that the potential move would negatively affect his psychological health, which should have been considered in the decision-making process. The significant stress and anxiety that a sudden notice of eviction is a fair indication of failure to adequately assess individual needs. Due to this, the claimant sought to have the decision quashed in order for accommodation arrangements to be reconsidered in a more individualised and fairer procedural manner.

On the contrary, the arguments raised by the defendant, the Secretary of State for the Home Office were on the grounds of legal documentation to stay in Norwich, rationality and proportionality to the asylum accommodation policies.

The justification of the Home Office’s decision to relocate RMO was argued on the basis that the standard asylum accommodation policy aimed at managing the high demand for housing and not to accommodate to an individual’s desires or personal preferences as this is in line with section 95 obligations of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999[3]. Relocation to Walsall was said to be consistent with the policy as it allows the movement of asylum seekers to different areas based on availability rather than personal preference.

It was disputed that the relocation interfered with private life under Article 8 as the relocation was deemed unfair and disproportionately interfered with RMO’s personal life. It was argued that while academics is important, it does not automatically create a right to remain in a particular location. The state contended that any interference with RMO’s studies was a minor priority and proportionate when weighted against the broader need to manage asylum accommodation fairly across the UK.

Another claim brought by the Home Office was that they held no duty to accommodate asylum seekers near their chosen educational institutions. It was asserted that the accommodation provided was for basic needs like shelter and subsistence, not to facilitate higher education or personal preferences. Despite educational programs in the location, the Home Office claimed that the asylum seekers have no right to demand housing in a location of their choice.

The governmental body defended the decision as it contributes to the effort to distribute asylum seekers equitable across available housing locations. It was argued that allowing exceptions on the premise of education would set a precedent that could undermine the asylum housing system, leading to increased administrative challenges and preferential treatment.

Judgement

The court held in favour of RMO and granted his request to stay in his current location, quash the Home Office’s decision and a court order was issued to the Home Office to reconsider the case and provide concise, individualised reasons for any future decision.

It was held that the Home Office’s decision lacked a proper assessment of RMO’s specific situation. The decision was described as rigid and inflexible as there was a failure to consider for the temporary nature of the educational pursuit and the impact of relocation on his studies and well-being. The court emphasised that asylum accommodation decisions must not be applied in a general manner without consideration of exceptional circumstances. The reasoning given was found to be insufficient, vague and did not engage with the claimant’s arguments. This case affirmed that public authorities have a duty to provide clear and transparent reasoning when making decisions that impact fundamental rights. The court confirmed that the decision did indeed interfere with RMO’s private life, as it would force him to abandon his studies, and acknowledged that education is an important aspect of private life. The failure to conduct a balanced approach in relation to the impact of relocation and the policy justification for moving RMO led to the court’s decision to insist that Article 8 must be considered when making future decisions.

Analysis

This decision has had a profound impact on asylum law and administrative decision-making where key legal principles were reinforced in several critical areas. It established a precedent that public authorities have a heightened duty to consider individual circumstances, such as education and stability, when making relocation decisions. However, a potential implication of this increased duty is that the Home Office may face more delays in the distribution of asylum seekers due to the greater pressure to properly assess personal circumstances. Thus therefore, indirectly impacts other asylum seekers. This enhancement in duty for the public authority also results in a reduction of arbitrary decisions. Furthermore, the scrutiny in assessing personal conditions in the relocation of asylum seekers for the benefit of other asylum seekers would add more pressure on the UK’s current struggle to maintain the current housing crisis and backlog [4].

Nevertheless, the increased scrutiny offers tangible benefits for asylum seekers as it allows for more individuals to challenge relocation decisions based on the grounds of education, stability and proportionality. A rise in legal challenges sought would not only increase justice being distributed but also increase confidence in the justice system.  

The recognition of education as part of private life was an imperative argument that was raised where it was concluded that the education is an aspect of private life. Consequently, this decision strengthens the legal foundation for future claims where asylum seekers argue that relocation adversely affects their education, thus providing stronger grounds for legal challenges under both Common Law and Human Rights Law.

Conclusion

The High Court’s ruling reaffirmed the necessity of clarity in the justification of a decision as public bodies can be held accountable in judicial review for an unlawful decision. It highlights the importance and fragility of making decisions affecting asylum seekers as they must be individualised to prevent unfair and inflexible future decisions. This case also confirmed that any decision for relocation must be proportionately justified and in cases where education is an aspect of the circumstances, article 8 would be enacted. By quashing the relocation order, the judgement reinforced the need for clear, justified, and fair decision-making in asylum accommodation policies, ensuring that human rights considerations are properly weighed in administrative decisions.

Reference(S)

[1]Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights as amended) (ECHR) art 8.

[2] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights as amended) (ECHR) art 8.

[3] Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, s 95.

[4] Dominic Casciani, ‘What’s behind the Home Office migrant backlog?’ (BBC News, 1 November 2022) < https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63477371 > accessed 27 March 2025.