An illegal immigrant who “couch surfed’ for 8 years has won a high court battle to be housed in the city of his choice.
The Afghan national—who arrived in the UK as an unaccompanied child in 2015—successfully challenged the Home Secretary by judicial review after his request to be housed in a hotel in London was refused.
The man, now in his 20s, had argued that his mental health would suffer if he was moved outside of his south London “support network.”
He had requested to be housed in either hotel accommodation in Lambeth or Croydon close to friends and a local mosque he has been attending.
It cited a care needs assessment by the local authority in Lambeth which found the man has a “substantial risk” of self-neglect, malnutrition, dehydration, deteriorating mental health, and self-harm.
The medical report suggested that he continue to engage with his counsellor, youth worker, and his current support network in south London to “mitigate” the risks.
However, the medical evidence was assessed by the Home Office’s medical adviser who informed him that “suitable medical and support services do exist in other UK cities,” and that his request was again rejected.
Disappeared
The man—who was not identified in the proceedings—successfully applied for judicial review of Mrs. Braverman’s decision in July.The high court hearing examining the Afghan’s national came before Mr. Justice Saini on Oct. 25.
The court heard how the “vulnerable individual” arrived in the UK in 2015 as an “unaccompanied asylum-seeking child.”
Aged 15, he was initially taken into care by West Sussex Children’s Services, but went missing from this accommodation just a few months later in what was described as “rather disturbing circumstances.”
The judge was told that since disappearing from care until earlier this year, he had been “couch surfing” and staying with friends in and around Croydon and Lambeth “for about 8 years.”
There, the court was told, he had built up a community of friends, a “support network,” and had integrated himself into the local “religious community.”
In May, he was notified by the friend he was staying with at the time that he had to leave.
He then applied for “Section 98” support—Home Office help to support those in the asylum process who lack the means to support themselves—but was refused on the basis he had not received a care assessment from a local authority.
The claimant’s solicitors sent urgent pre-action correspondence a week later “as well as subsequent follow ups indicating that the claimant was at imminent risk of street homelessness,” but the Home Secretary did not respond, the court heard.
He was eventually moved to hotel accommodation in Swindon.
Unlawful
The high court heard evidence from support workers and counsellors who had been engaging with the man in both south London and Swindon.The judge was told he has been prescribed high doses of medication to address his mental health difficulties and is assessed as a “vulnerable young man who suffers from psychological distress and presents with suicidal ideation.”
The court was also presented with evidence from the claimant of a “significant deterioration” in his mental health after being moved.
Justice Saini found the home secretary’s decision-making process in his case unlawful due to the fact her medical adviser and a Home Office caseworker failed to address the claimant’s relationship with his support network or what impact severing that relationship would have on his mental health.
The judge also found that the Home Office failed to regard the local authority care assessment on the man’s needs.
It was also noted how the home secretary filed no evidence—whether in the form of a witness statement or otherwise—and that her lawyer indicated that he had no instructions Mrs. Braverman’s caseworker had considered the medical assessment.
Justice Saini recognised the “force in the Claimant’s argument on the merits,” as the relevant guidance appeared to suggest the section 98 duty was suspended pending competition of a care needs assessment, which therefore appears to “instruct caseworkers to approach applications on an unlawful basis.”
He declared: “The Secretary of State acted unlawfully in the exercise of her functions (1) under s.98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 when, on 1 June 2023, she decided to accommodate the Claimant in Swindon, away from his support network in South London, and (2) under s.95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 when, on 9 June 2023, she decided to continue to accommodate the Claimant in Swindon.
“Both decisions were unlawful because the Secretary of State failed to have regard to relevant evidence in the form of a Care Needs Assessment completed by the local authority, supporting letters from the Claimant’s counsellor and supporting letters from the Claimant’s support worker.”
The Epoch Times has contacted the Home Office for comment.
