In a significant human-rights ruling handed down on 20 February, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Home Secretary’s attempt to overturn a tribunal decision preventing the deportation of “KS”, an Afghan national who arrived in the UK as a child and was later recognised as a victim of trafficking. The court upheld findings that removal would breach Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to KS’s post-traumatic stress disorder and risk of re-trafficking. The judgement criticises the Home Office for failing to challenge expert medical and country evidence at first-instance level, reinforcing the appellate principle that specialist immigration tribunals deserve deference when their reasoning is adequate. Lawyers say the decision will influence dozens of pending appeals involving Afghan returnees, many of whom face deteriorating security conditions under Taliban rule. For global-mobility teams the case underlines increased scrutiny on any attempts to remove long-resident employees whose asylum claims have complex backgrounds. Employers sponsoring Afghan staff should expect extended processing times and be prepared to provide safeguarding evidence if employees face enforcement action. The ruling also highlights the potential cost of litigation for the Home Office, which has lost several high-profile appeals in recent months. Observers predict the government may revise guidance on Afghan deportations, prioritising voluntary returns or alternative legal pathways such as the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP).
Source: Garden Court Chambers
