Areas of Experience
- Asylum and International Protection
- British Nationality
- Detention and Bail
- Entry Clearance
- EU Free Movement
- Family Immigration and Human Rights
- Immigration Appeals
- Judicial Review
- Points-Based System
- Urgent Injunctions and Removals
- Visit Visas
The Immigration Team
Our immigration barristers have a reputation for dedication and professionalism. Members of the team have been involved in many of the leading cases of recent years (see below).
There is a wide range of experience within the team from leading Counsel, to the newly qualified.
The commitment and expertise of the team extends to and is applied to every instruction whether Courtroom advocacy, written work or advising in Conference.
Many of our barristers are able to act directly for members of the public, providing direct access immigration advice and representation.
Members can assist on the full range of issues arising out of applications, immigration decisions and the appeal process. This includes but is not limited to:
- Refugee Law
- ECHR Law
- EU Law
Each member of the team has significant experience of Judicial Review in both the Administrative Court and the Upper Tribunal (IAC). The team offers prompt consideration of papers followed by clear and cogent advice as to the best way forward and prospects of success. This includes but is not limited to:
- Fresh claims
- Clearly unfounded claims
- S94 2002 Act certification ‘deport first appeal later’
- Cart Judicial Reviews
- Applications for injunctions and urgent relief
Scope of Work
The team take on both publicly funded and private work and members appear at all levels at Hearing centres throughout England and Wales. We can assist on the full range of issues encountered by clients in the immigration, nationality and asylum fields, including but not limited to the ‘Areas of Experience’ listed at the top of this page. Members are also involved with and active in assisting voluntary bodies and charities including:
- Amnesty International
- Bar Pro Bono Unit
- BID (Bail for Immigration Detainees)
- Equality and Human Rights Commission
Multi Disciplinary Expertise
The 36 Group at 4 Field Court is one of the most well established and progressive multi-disciplinary sets of Chambers in the country with over 100 members, including 10 Queen’s Counsel.
Barristers within the 36 Group are often members of more than one specialist practice group, but even where they are not, each barrister is able to call upon the experience and knowledge of colleagues in other practice groups. This provides excellent scope to draw on expertise in the overlap between:
- Immigration and Extradition Law
- Immigration and Family Law
- Immigration and Housing Law
- Immigration and Criminal Law
Individual team members are fluent, or have a high level of proficiency, in French, German, Hindi, Punjabi, Russian, Somali, Spanish, Polish and Urdu.
36 Civil regularly hosts immigration seminars to help you keep your knowledge and skills up-to-date. These seminars are known for their refreshing and novel approach, the aim being to keep practitioners up to date with developments in legislation and case law in a friendly, collegiate, and hospitable setting. Members of the team are happy to offer training in house, please get in touch if you would like us to do so.
Recent Cases Involving Members of the Team
For a full list of cases please consult individual member’s CVs.
- R (on the application of KA and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ending of Kumar arrangements)  UKUT 00201 (IAC)
This was a challenge to the arrangement arising from R (on the application of Kumar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (acknowledgment of service: tribunal arrangements) IJR  UKUT 00104 (IAC) whereby the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have a six-week extension to file an acknowledgment of service. The Upper Tribunal found that the arrangement should come to an end, which it will for applications for permission for judicial review made after 1st January 2019. The tribunal also provided guidance as to what should be covered within the summary grounds of defence.
Court of appeal decision overturning the Upper Tribunal’s findings in Sala (EFMs: Right of Appeal: Albania)  UKUT 411 (IAC). The Court held that extended family members of EEA nationals do have a right of appeal under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.
- R (on the application of Harding) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 358 (Admin)
A challenge by way of judicial review to the Secretary of State’s refusal to issue a British passport, resulting in the decision being quashed as the reason relied upon for refusing the passport was held to be unlawful.
Appeals concerning deprivation of nationality under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981, i.e. that deprivation is conducive to the public good. The best interests of children must be considered both at the deprivation stage of the process and as part of the subsequent deportation or removal consideration. Although there is a positive duty on the Secretary of State to consider the children’s best interests, it is for the parent who is the subject of the proceedings to make representations and provide evidence in support for the secretary of state to consider.
A case concerning the certification of an asylum claim made by a Nigerian national on grounds of sexuality. The service of a new “one stop notice” by the Secretary of State did not prevent her from certifying a case under section 96(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in reliance on a failure to raise a matter in response to a previous “one stop notice”.
An appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Upper Tribunal’s decision that a foreign criminal’s deportation to Somalia would breach their rights under article 3 of the ECHR. The court held that to return a person who could bring themselves within the factors set out in paragraph 408 of MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG  UKUT 00442, would not be a breach of article 3.
The Court of Appeal considered the proper approach to be taken by judges in cases where a person sought entry clearance to join a family member in the UK.
All six appellants suffered from serious medical conditions and contended that their removal from the UK would breach their rights under article. The court held that the state had not assumed responsibility for the plight of the appellants and their removal from the UK was not therefore a breach of their article 3 rights.