RA (Iraq) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 850 (17 May 2019)
AJ (s 94B: Kiarie and Byndloss questions) Nigeria  UKUT 115 (IAC)
D2 (Exclusion : Substantive)  UKSIAC SC_112_2012 (8 February 2019)
R (on the application of SM & Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dublin Regulation – Italy)  UKUT 429 (IAC)
The Queen (on the application of XYL) v SSHD
The Queen (on the application of Q) v Leicestershire County Council and the SSHD  EWHC 2087
Herrera v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 412 (31 January 2018)
MG, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 31 (Admin) (23 January 2018)
R (on the application of RM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dublin; Article 27(1); procedure)  UKUT 00260 (IAC)
NA (Sudan) v SSHD,  EWCA Civ 1060
SSHD v FY(Somalia)  EWCA Civ 1853
ZG & SA (Naturalisation : Substantive)  UKSIAC 1_SN_23_2015 (20 April 2016)
ZEI and others (Decision withdrawn – FtT Rule 17 – considerations) Palestine  UKUT 00292 (IAC)
AH (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 796 (23 June 2017)
TH (Bangladesh) & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 815 (10 August 2016)
Hossain & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1)  EWHC 1331 (Admin) (07 June 2016)
JA (child – risk of persecution) Nigeria  UKUT 00560 (IAC)
AZ (Syria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 35
NA(Pakistan); Case C 115/15
Auleear v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 2833 (Admin) (10 November 2016)
Cham, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1)  EWHC 1345 (Admin) (17 June 2016)
Kannathasan, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 3574
AS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor  EWCA Civ 1076
AM & AM (armed conflict: risk categories) Somalia CG  UKAIT 00091
GM (Eritrea); YT (Eritrea); MY (Eritrea) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,  EWCA Civ 833
R (PK (DRC)) v SSHD  EWCA Civ 302
MY (Turkey) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,  EWCA Civ 477
Miao v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal  EWCA Civ 75
MA (Somalia), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 966 (30 July 2013)
AZ v SSHD  EWHC 3695 (Admin)
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Straszewski  EWCA Civ 1245
MF (Article 8 – New Rules) Nigeria v. SSHD  UKUT 00393 (IAC)
MF (Nigeria) v SSHD  EWCA Civ 1192
R (on the application of Saboun) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR  UKUT 0269 (IAC)
MS & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 1095 (Admin)
EM Eritrea & Ors v SSHD  EWCA Civ 1336
EM Eritrea & Ors v SSHD  UKSC 12
R(on the application of Natalia Heritage)v SSHD IJR UKUT 441(IAC)
R (on the application of Rahman)  EWHC 1640 (Admin)
five of thirty-eight months detention were found unlawful
R (on the application of Yegorov)  EWHC 3358 (Admin)
The detention of a Russian national held for 31 months at trial, and 10 months of the total period, was found unlawful.
E v SSHD  EWHC 1030 (Admin)
AHK & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 151
MF (Nigeria) v SSHD  EWCA Civ 1192
The key point in this appeal is that the Rules from both the Home Office position and the Court of Appeal (see para 39) do not herald a restoration of the exceptionality test and the Rules have to be interpreted consistently with Strasbourg.
EM (Eritrea) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department,  EWCA Civ 1336
This important and topical case, going to the Supreme Court in November 2013, concerns the return of asylum seekers between member states of the EU. The Court of Appeal thought that the so-called ‘Dublin’ system sets a higher threshold for establishing an individual’s risk of inhuman or degrading treatment than the ECHR does and this higher test “exists nowhere else in refugee law“. The appeal seeks to resolve this clash and the outcome will have significant consequences for the rights of vulnerable asylum seekers who face homelessness and ill-treatment if removed to such EU countries as Italy.
E1 (OS Russia) v Secretary of State  EWCA Civ 357
The UK cancelled our client’s indefinite leave to remain while he was out of the country and told him he could only appeal from abroad. The Court of Appeal decided the Secretary of State was wrong. The client was able to return to fight his appeal from the UK.
Y, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, EWHC 1075 (Admin)
This case involves historic victims of trafficking which are currently being denied the rights and benefits derived from the Trafficking Convention. It is currently at the Court of Appeal.
RT (Zimbabwe) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department,  UKSC 38
This was a ground breaking decision upholding the right not to hold political or religious views. The court found that the ability to exercise free choice as to whether to have political views or not is key to human dignity.
MF (Article 8 – New Rules) Nigeria v. SSHD  UKUT 00393 (IAC)
This is the leading case on the interpretation of the new Immigration Rules that came into force on 9th July 2012 on Article 8 cases for foreign national criminals. The client’s appeal was allowed on human rights grounds.
PO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department,  EWCA Civ 132
This case started out as CG on Nigerian victims of trafficking. This was the first case involving a victim human trafficking to be heard by the Court of Appeal. The appeal was successful and helpful interim guidance findings were made by the Court of Appeal.
E1 v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSIAC 93/2010 (23 March 2011)
E1 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Elmi, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 2775 (Admin) (13 October 2010)
This case successfully challenged the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s failure to consider a request for an application for entry clearance to be accepted without the payment of a fee.
HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 31.
This was a visionary case that established the Refugee Convention protects a gay person’s right to live a free and open life. As a result of this case HT was recognised as a refugee in the UK. The case involved complex interpretation of refugee law.
AM and BM (Trafficked women) Albania v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, CG  UKUT 80 (IAC),
Successful Country Guidance case on Albanian victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation. This is the key case on victims of trafficking from Albania.
KB (Trinidad and Tobago) v. SSHD  EWCA Civ 11
The Home Office unsuccessfully argued that a different Article 8 test should apply to foreign national criminals, in clear contravention of human rights caselaw, and the client was allowed to keep his indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP  UKSC 24 (16 June 2010)
This complex case concerned the lawfulness of conditions imposed through control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. The Supreme Court found unanimously that the restrictions imposed on the client, including a 16 hour curfew and relocation to a town a long way from his family, were severe enough to amount to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the ECHR.
MJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 557 (20 May 2010)
The Court of Appeal allowed the client’s appeal against a decision to make a deportation order on Article 8 grounds. The court found the Home Office needed very serious reasons to justify deporting a settled migrant suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, who had lawfully spent the majority of his youth in the UK, even though he had criminal convictions.
BA (Nigeria) and PE (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 7
PE was the subject of a deportation order for having false documents which he used to work to support himself, before he was recognised as a refugee. The Home Office wanted to ignore new medical evidence and deport him, without giving him an appeal. This case established that where the Home Office refuses to revoke a deportation order the client will have a right of appeal
MK (Lesbians) Albania v. Secretary of State for the Home Department CG  UKAIT 00036
Country Guidance case on lesbians from Albania – this case represented a lot of work, but the legal principles have now been clarified by the Supreme Court in HT.
NR (Jamaica) v. SSHD  EWCA Civ 856
A Court of Appeal deportation appeal with one of the main arguments in the appeal being the risk of persecution to the client as a lesbian returning to Jamaica. The Court of Appeal accepted that the Tribunal had dealt with the issue of the client’s sexuality very badly.
SJ and JM (Christians – FS confirmed) Iran CG  UKAIT00082
A Country Guidance case concerning an Iranian Catholic convert from Islam (JM). His appeal was successful as the Tribunal found it likely that the appellant would not be able to practise his religion without persecution if in Iran.
Saadi v UK in Grand chamber ECHR
This case related to the detention of asylum seekers in the Oakington fast track and was the first time the Strasbourg Court ruled on asylum seekers in the Grand Chamber.
AB (Protection – Criminal Gangs – Internal Relocation) Jamaica v. Secretary of State for the Home Department CG  UKAIT 00018
Country Guidance case concerning victims of gang-related violence. Although the appeal was not allowed, a very useful finding was made by the Tribunal to the effect that the Jamaican authorities cannot protect victims of gang violence within the Kingston Metropolitan Area (KMA). This case is still good law
FK (DRC) v. SSHD  EWCA Civ 1545
An important case dealing with a mother’s attempt to remain in the UK with her British Citizen husband and children. The Court of Appeal accepted that the Article 8 ECHR assessment of the first Judge was correct and that the client should not be forced to return to the Democratic Republic of Congo which would split up the family.
HH (Rule 23: Meaning Extent) Iraq  UKAIT00036
In asylum appeals the Home Office gets to see the determination up to 28 days before it is shown to the appellant. This important case put an end to the Home Office practice of appealing a determination prior to it being served on the asylum seeker.
AS and AA (Effect of previous link determination) Somalia  UKAIT00052
This case clarified the law in relation to the appeal determination of a family member, confirming that this should be the starting point and the narrative content taken as evidence of what happened up to the date of the determination.
The Queen on the application of Yussuf (Claimant) v. SSHD  EWHC 2847 (Admin)
A Judicial Review challenge to the Home Office decision to return an asylum seeker to Greece on safe third country grounds. The application was successful on Article 8 ECHR grounds on the basis that the client had a particularly strong bond with his sisters in the UK who had refugee status.
Sadia Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1363
This case involved the right to family life and the attempts to return an asylum seeker to Italy when her mother was in the UK. Complex identity issues had to be resolved.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Elizabeth Akaeke  EWCA Civ 947
This is a key case challenging the Home Office delay in making a decision on an immigration application. The case was built through persistent correspondence and the Home Office was found to be rather exposed in the Court of Appeal. The client was granted leave to stay in the UK.
Djebbar v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 804
This case was an attempt to escape the adverse consequence of a country guidance case.
AA (Risk – Geledi – Benadiri clan) Somalia  UKIAT05720
In this case the Tribunal accepted that members of the Somali Geledi clan should be granted refugee status.
KA and SSHD  UKIAT00266
An important starred determination of Mr Justice Collins confirming our client did have a right of appeal under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, despite defects in the Home Office notice of decision.
NH and SSHD  UKIAT05912
Confirmed that a Somali national and member of the minority Tunni clan should be granted refugee status
Lul Omar Adan in House of Lords 2000
The House of Lords held that “the sky would not fall in” if a victim of the Somali civil war had her asylum claim considered in the UK, as opposed to being returned to Germany.
Farah v British Airways
The Home Office gave inaccurate information to British Airways about the client’s immigration status and as a result they were detained in Egypt for 8 days. This case established that they could sue the Home Office and BA for damages.
In this case the court looked at whether the client was an illegal entrant by deception. It involved a thorough analysis of interview notes.
Hassan Hussein Adan in House of Lords 1998
This case explored the extent to which an innocent person caught up in the Somali civil war can qualify for refugee status. Considerable research was conducted on the original discussions leading upto the signing of the 1951 Refugee Convention and academic commentators.