Muhammad Zahab Jamali

The parties agreed that the circumstances in which the Secretary of State agreed to reconsider the Appellant's application for a visitor's visa, pursuant to a Consent Order sealed on 25 November 2024, and the Secretary of State's failure thereafter to meet the deadline of "within three months of this order being sealed, absent special circumstances", are materially indistinguishable from the circumstances in the case of Nisar.

The Court granted permission to appeal on 3 out of 7 grounds against a High Court decision, finding that the Appellant raised a compelling issue concerning the proper interpretation of section 4L of the British Nationality Act 1981, which has generated conflicting judicial interpretations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by consent after the Secretary of State agreed to withdraw the decision dated 9 October 2024 cancelling the Appellant's leave and to make a fresh decision within three months. It was argued that the Respondent breached the Tameside duty by failing to make adequate enquiries before relying solely on the employer's allegation and failed to follow published policy by not allowing a 60-day period to secure a new sponsor. The Court considered the first ground to raise an issue of wider public importance, namely whether the Secretary of State can lawfully rely solely on an employer's assertion without giving the employee an opportunity to respond, and held it arguable that such an approach could be irrational.

The Court of Appeal considered two appeals concerning the costs consequences of judicial review proceedings that became academic after the Secretary of State made delayed entry clearance decisions. In Nisar, the Home Office had agreed to issue a fresh decision by a specified deadline but failed to do so. The claimants reasonably commenced judicial review proceedings after the deadline expired, and the Secretary of State issued the decision shortly afterwards. The Court held that the case fell within the first category identified in M v Croydon, namely where the claimant's proceedings achieved the desired outcome. The appeal was allowed and the Court held that the Secretary of State should pay the claimants' costs incurred up to the compromise of the claim.

The Court dismissed ANL's application to discharge the anonymity orders made by the Tribunal and Court of Appeal, maintaining SA's anonymity throughout the proceedings. ANL's application for disclosure of the unredacted decisions and evidence was also refused. As the successful party, SA was awarded her costs of ANL's applications, summarily assessed at £35,000.

The Appellant issued proceedings seeking determination of his asylum claim after the case remained pending for over 16 months with no indication of when his substantive interview would be scheduled. The issue was whether the issue of proceedings achieved what the Applicant set out to achieve – namely a timeframe by which the decision would be made or served. Post grant of permission in the Court of Appeal, the Respondent agreed that the decision of UTJ Perkins under challenge be quashed and the appeal be allowed, and agreed to pay reasonable costs of JR-2023-LON-000236 and CA-2024-002311, to be assessed if not agreed.

The Appellant had sought his costs for issuing judicial review proceedings on account of the SSHD's delay in making a decision for his asylum claim. The Respondent argued the delay was minor and costs should not be awarded. The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal the Upper Tribunal's order for no order as to costs. The claim was subsequently settled with the SSHD agreeing to pay the Appellant's costs.

The Appellant had issued judicial review proceedings after the Respondent failed to issue a decision for his asylum claim within the agreed deadline. The issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the Appellant was entitled to his costs for not submitting a pre-action letter before issuing proceedings. The Court granted permission to appeal and found in favour of the Appellant, prompting the SSHD to settle the claim and pay the Appellant his costs.

The Appellants challenged the decisions of a High Court Judge on costs. Following grant of permission by a Court of Appeal Judge, Mr Jamali actively negotiated a settlement in these linked appeals, whereby the SSHD conceded the claim just before the substantive hearing and offered to pay the majority of costs of the Court of Appeal proceedings. Mr Jamali got these clients out of detention, got the decision to cancel leave quashed, got damages awarded in excess of £31,000, then obtained further leaves to remain and succeeded in the Court of Appeal as well.

The Court of Appeal gave guidance on paragraph 322(5) decisions in line with Minded to Refuse Letters and their effect. The matter is currently pending in the Supreme Court.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs before the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Vos, just one day before the substantive hearing. The Appellant had alleged that the GLD caseworker and a senior panel B counsel had arguably misled the High Court by not updating the Court that, following grant of permission by Mr Justice Morris, the Defendant changed the law under challenge. The SSHD was ordered to pay costs of the Court of Appeal as well as the High Court proceedings spanning from 2020 to 2023.

The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal whereby the SSHD's conduct was challenged, because she first confirmed to a High Court Judge during an out of hours injunctive relief application that she would stop the removal but then informed that the Claimant had been removed. The matter is awaiting a substantive hearing before Lord Justices.

The Appellant had his appeal refused in the First Tier Tribunal, followed by two refusals of permission by the FTT and UT. His Cart JR was refused by a High Court Judge, his new application was refused by the Home Office, and permission to judicial review was refused on the papers by one Judge and at oral hearing by another. Permission was finally granted by a Court of Appeal Judge criticising all the decisions below. The SSHD was subsequently ordered to pay complete costs in the Court of Appeal and the Upper Tribunal.

The Appellant challenged the decision of the Upper Tribunal Judge refusing his substantive judicial review claim. Following grant of permission by a Court of Appeal Judge, the SSHD conceded the claim but disputed costs. Following costs submissions, the Master of the Court of Appeal awarded costs to the Appellant.

The Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Upper Tribunal Judge, considering whether procedural fairness requires an applicant to be provided an opportunity to respond to an allegation of dishonesty in an entry clearance application. Carr LJ commented at [32] that "this is an important point which does not appear to have been considered directly in any of the authorities to date". Permission was granted and the matter was remitted to the Upper Tribunal for detailed guidance. The Respondent soon conceded the claim with costs and granted the visa.

The SSHD conceded the appeal in the Court of Appeal in relation to paragraph 322(5) but disputed costs. Following detailed submissions, the Court of Appeal awarded costs to the applicant.

The SSHD conceded the appeal in the Court of Appeal with costs, against refusing the applicants' application on the basis of the TOEIC test.

The SSHD conceded the matter refusing the application for leave to remain. The matter was challenged by judicial review JR/6161/2016 which was refused, then challenged in the Court of Appeal where Lord Justice Wilkie granted permission. The matter was concluded and the SSHD paid costs for the proceedings.

The Applicant was refused entry at the airport and issued a notice of refusal to enter. The decision was challenged by judicial review CO/3959/2014, which was refused on the papers, renewed, and refused again by His Honour Judge Sycamore at the hearing. The matter was subsequently challenged in the Court of Appeal. The SSHD conceded and agreed to pay the costs of the complete proceedings.

The SSHD had certified the Claimant's claim as clearly unfounded and detained him. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the Claimant's asylum claim and pay his costs.

The SSHD had certified the Claimant's claim as clearly unfounded and set removal directions against him after detaining him. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the Claimant's asylum claim and pay his costs.

The SSHD pursued the Claimant's removal from the UK but had failed to serve the outcome of his further submissions, leaving him unable to assess whether he had a right to appeal. Upon issuing proceedings, removal was stopped at the last minute and the claim was settled with costs awarded to the Claimant.

The SSHD had issued removal directions against the Claimant despite him having further submissions pending. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD cancelled the removal directions and settled the claim by paying his costs.

The Claimants had made an application for leave to enter the UK under the ARAP scheme. In light of the SSD's consistent failure to make a decision, they were forced to issue proceedings, upon which the SSD made a decision, rendering the claim academic. The claim was settled with the Defendant agreeing to pay the Claimants' costs.

The SSHD had alleged that the Claimant attempted to use deception in making his skilled worker visa application. Permission has been granted by the High Court and this claim is currently at the substantive stage.

The Claimant was refused entry into the UK at port because the SSHD claimed his leave had been curtailed before he sought to return. The Claimant issued judicial review proceedings on the basis that the curtailment notice was never served on him. The SSHD agreed to settle the claim by reconsidering the refusal of entry and pay his costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim and sought to remove him from the UK via a chartered flight. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD stopped his removal, reinstated the asylum claim and agreed to settle the claim by paying his costs.

The SSHD had certified the Claimant's claim as clearly unfounded and set removal directions against him after detaining him. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to provide the remedy sought and to pay the Claimant's costs.

The Applicant had applied for leave to remain but her application had been rejected after the SSHD cancelled her appointment. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the application and invited her for biometrics. In settling the claim, the SSHD agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim and sought to remove him from the UK via a chartered flight. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD stopped his removal, reinstated the asylum claim and agreed to settle the claim by paying his costs.

The SSHD had certified the Claimant's claim as clearly unfounded and set removal directions against him after detaining him. Upon issuing proceedings, the Claimant's removal was stopped and the SSHD agreed to provide the remedy sought and pay the Claimant's costs.

The Claimant's leave to remain was granted by the SSHD, however the SSHD repeatedly failed to return his passport. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD provided the remedy sought and agreed to pay his costs.

The SSHD refused the Claimant's entry into the UK, alleging his leave had been curtailed whilst he was outside the UK. Proceedings were issued on the basis that the curtailment notice was never properly served, and thus his leave could not have been lawfully cancelled. The SSHD conceded the claim and agreed to pay the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD had cancelled the Claimant's leave as a skilled worker dependent. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to withdraw and reconsider the decision cancelling her leave and to settle the claim by paying the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD had rejected the Claimant's further submissions. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the decisions and to pay the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD had detained the Claimant on the allegation that his asylum claim had been refused and the decision sent to his previous representatives. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD admitted the decision had not been sent to his previous representatives and settled the claim by serving the decision and paying his costs.

The SSHD had cancelled the Claimant's leave as a skilled worker dependent. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to withdraw and reconsider the decision and to settle the claim by paying the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD had revoked the Claimant's sponsor licence. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD reinstated the sponsor licence and agreed to pay its costs.

The SSHD cancelled the Claimant's leave for allegedly working in breach of his visa conditions. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider its decision and paid the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD revoked the Claimant's sponsor licence application. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reinstate the sponsor licence and pay the Claimant's costs.

The Claimant had applied to enter the UK as a skilled worker on a super priority basis. The Defendant failed to meet the super priority deadline and refused to refund the Claimant. Upon issuing proceedings, the Defendant agreed to settle the claim and pay the Claimant's costs.

The Claimant's asylum had been refused and certified. Permission for judicial review against the certification decision was granted by the High Court, following which the SSHD agreed to settle the claim and pay the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD reinstated the asylum claim and agreed to settle the claim by paying his costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD reinstated the asylum claim and agreed to settle the claim by paying his costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD reinstated the asylum claim and agreed to settle the claim by paying his costs.

The Claimant's asylum had been refused and certified. Permission for judicial review against the certification decision was granted by the High Court, following which the SSHD agreed to settle the claim and pay the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD reinstated the asylum claim and agreed to settle the claim by paying his costs.

The Claimant's asylum had been refused and certified. Permission for judicial review against the certification decision was granted by the High Court, following which the SSHD agreed to settle the claim and pay the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD reinstated the asylum claim and agreed to settle the claim by paying his costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD reinstated the asylum claim and agreed to settle the claim by paying his costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD reinstated the asylum claim and agreed to settle the claim by paying his costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD reinstated the asylum claim and agreed to settle the claim by paying his costs.

The Claimant's asylum had been refused and certified. Permission for judicial review against the certification decision was granted by the High Court, following which the SSHD agreed to settle the claim and pay the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD reinstated the asylum claim and agreed to settle the claim by paying his costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD reinstated the asylum claim and agreed to settle the claim by paying his costs.

The SSHD had refused and certified the Claimant's asylum claim and then detained him. The Claimant issued judicial review proceedings challenging his asylum outcome and his detention. The SSHD conceded the claim and agreed to pay the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD reinstated the asylum claim and agreed to settle the claim by paying his costs.

The Claimant's asylum claim had been refused and certified by the SSHD. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to withdraw and reconsider the asylum decisions. The proceedings were settled with the SSHD agreeing to pay the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD had withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim. However, upon these proceedings being issued, the SSHD agreed to reinstate the asylum claim and pay his costs.

The SSHD had refused and certified the Claimant's asylum claim and then detained him. Upon issuing these proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider his asylum claim and released him from detention. The SSHD also agreed to pay the Claimant's costs.

The Claimant had made his SAR application but the SSHD provided partial disclosure, prompting him to issue judicial review proceedings. The Defendant was ordered to pay 50% of the Claimant's costs after the claim became academic.

The Claimant had made his SAR application but the SSHD provided partial disclosure, prompting him to issue judicial review proceedings. The Defendant was ordered to pay 50% of the Claimant's costs after the claim became academic.

Despite the Claimant having a pending appeal, the SSHD detained him and sought to remove him from the UK. The Claimant issued judicial review proceedings seeking injunctive relief and release from detention. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD conceded the claim and the High Court ordered that it also pay the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD refused and certified the Claimant's asylum claim and issued him with removal directions. Upon issuing these proceedings, the SSHD decided to withdraw its decisions and reconsider the asylum claim. The Defendant also agreed to pay the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD detained the Claimant whilst he was reporting in line with his bail conditions and attempted to remove him from the UK shortly thereafter. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to release him from detention, accepted that his detention was unlawful, and agreed to pay the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD had refused and certified the Claimant's asylum claim and then arranged his removal via a chartered flight. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the Claimant sought urgent consideration from the High Court to stop his removal, which was granted. The judicial review claim subsequently succeeded and the SSHD agreed to pay his costs.

The SSHD refused the Claimant's leave to enter the UK and detained her with the intention to remove her. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the Defendant withdrew its decision refusing entry and agreed to pay her costs.

The SSHD had cancelled the Claimant's leave to remain and set removal directions against them. Upon issuing proceedings, the Defendant cancelled the removal directions and reinstated their leave to remain, and agreed to pay the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD issued the Claimant with a fixed penalty notice. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the Defendant withdrew its penalty notice and issued the Claimant with a refund, and agreed to pay the Claimant's costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim and decided to remove him from the UK. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the Claimant's removal was stopped and the SSHD agreed to reinstate his asylum claim.

The Claimants' fee waiver applications had been refused, requiring them to pay the SSHD's fees. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD decided to withdraw the decisions and agreed to pay the Claimants' costs.

The Claimant was granted leave to remain but the SSHD failed to return his passport despite multiple chasers. The Claimant issued judicial review proceedings, which were settled with the SSHD agreeing to return his passport and pay the Claimant's costs.

The Claimant had initially been detained by the UKBF, during which his passport was seized, and his leave was wrongly cancelled following his detention. He successfully challenged the cancellation in separate proceedings, but the SSHD continued to keep his passport despite multiple attempts to have it returned. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to return his passport and pay his costs.

The UKBF detained this Claimant at Heathrow Airport and issued removal directions for the same day at 2100 hours. Mr Jamali was instructed just after 1800 hours and was able to promptly cancel the removal directions and get her released on bail. Following negotiations with UK Border Force, they granted entry clearance so she could complete her pending photoshoots, and then also conceded the judicial review with costs. The Claimant has since issued a claim for damages for unlawful detention.

The UKBF detained this Claimant at Heathrow airport and issued removal directions for the next day. Following a prompt judicial review, the removal directions were cancelled and the Claimant was granted bail. The UK Border Force withdrew the decision under challenge and conceded the claim with costs. The Claimant has since been granted entry clearance and is in the process of issuing a claim for damages.

The SSHD had withheld the Claimant's original passport and documents for over 6 months despite granting him leave as a Graduate. This delay was challenged by judicial review. The SSHD returned the passport and documents and conceded the claim with costs.

The SSHD had withheld the Claimant's passports for nearly 2.5 years following grant of leave to remain. This delay was challenged in the High Court and within days the passports were returned and the SSHD conceded the claim with costs.

The High Court Judge gave guidance on when the interviewing process becomes flawed and on the failure by the UK Border Force to probe and investigate the Claimant.

The SSHD had granted the Claimant's Graduate visa application but withheld his original passport for 18 months. Once proceedings were issued, the SSHD promptly returned the passport and conceded the claim. The Claimant now has a damages claim pending.

The Health Secretary released the Claimant from a Managed Quarantine Facility following grant of interim relief by Mr Justice Lane. The SSHSC subsequently also agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

A High Court Judge granted expedition following delay from the Health Secretary in granting exemption to the Claimant from a Managed Quarantine Facility. The Health Secretary disputed costs and Mr Justice Mostyn criticised the Health Secretary's conduct and ordered her to pay costs of the proceedings.

The Claimant challenged the SSHD's delay in deciding his naturalisation application. Although the SSHD granted nationality, she disputed costs. A High Court Judge ordered the SSHD to pay the Claimant's legal costs.

The SSHD refused to grant a fee exemption to this minor Claimant for his nationality application. This was challenged in the High Court. The SSHD subsequently conceded the claim and was ordered to pay costs. The minor Claimant has since been granted fee exemption and his British nationality.

The SSHD conceded the claim in the High Court after refusing to admit the Claimant at the airport and detaining her. The SSHD paid all the legal costs and the claim was transferred for unlawful detention to the County Court.

The SSHD conceded the claim in the High Court with costs. The claimant had challenged the redactions in the subject access report and the SSHD provided the relevant disclosure.

The SSHD conceded the claim in the High Court with costs. The claimant had challenged the redactions in the subject access report and the SSHD provided the relevant disclosure.

The SSHD's attempt to remove the claimant from the United Kingdom was stopped following grant of injunction by Mrs Justice Steyn DBE. The SSHD subsequently agreed to reconsider the decision but disputed costs. Following written submissions, costs were awarded to the claimant.

The SSHD's attempt to remove the claimant from the United Kingdom was stopped following grant of injunction by Mrs Justice Lang DBE. The SSHD disputed costs and the issue was challenged in the Court of Appeal, but subsequently in a connected claim for unlawful detention the SSHD conceded the costs of these proceedings as well.

The SSHD was unable to remove the claimant from the United Kingdom following a successful challenge to removal and unlawful detention, which was subsequently conceded by the SSHD with costs and damages.

The SSHD stopped the Claimants at the airport and retained their passports. Upon filing the judicial review, the SSHD conceded, granted leave to enter and returned the passports to the Claimants.

The Applicant was detained at an IRC and issued removal directions. The matter was challenged by judicial review and the SSHD conceded the claim with costs. The Applicant was released on bail when permission was allowed on all grounds.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry and remove the claimant from the United Kingdom.

The client was detained upon landing at an airport in the United Kingdom following a complaint by his wife. Mr Jamali stopped his removal, got him released on bail, and successfully challenged the Home Office's decision to cancel his leave. Mr Jamali also obtained a declaration of unlawful detention from the High Court, and the Home Office was ordered to pay the client's legal costs plus £24,000 as damages.

The SSHD conceded and withdrew the Applicant's decision for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (PSW) application. The Claimant was also released from detention and subsequently granted further leave to remain.

The SSHD refused the Applicant's entry clearance as a visitor on the allegation that he had used deception in making his application. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD conceded to the submissions made and agreed to settle the claim and pay his costs.

The SSHD had curtailed the Applicant's leave to remain as a skilled worker to 60 days but did not serve the decision properly. On finding out that his leave had been curtailed and that he could not benefit from the 60 days, he issued proceedings. The SSHD accepted its mistake and agreed to settle the claim by paying the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had rejected the Applicant's further submissions. The Applicant was forced to issue judicial review proceedings. Permission was initially refused on paper but granted following an oral permission hearing at renewal stage. The SSHD shortly agreed to settle the claim and pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD refused the Applicant's entry clearance as a visitor on the allegation that she had used deception. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD conceded to the submissions made and agreed to settle the claim and pay her costs.

The Applicant's asylum claim had been refused and certified. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the asylum claim and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had curtailed the Applicant's leave as a skilled worker to 60 days but served the decision at the wrong email address. On finding out, he issued proceedings. The SSHD accepted its mistake and agreed to settle the claim by paying the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant had a pending application for further leave to remain. The SSHD's persistent delay forced the Applicant to issue judicial review proceedings, upon which the SSHD promptly issued the decision and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant's skilled worker application had been refused and he sought an administrative review. Following persistent delay, he issued judicial review proceedings and sought expedition, which was granted by the Upper Tribunal. The SSHD promptly decided the administrative review and the claim was settled with the SSHD agreeing to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant had been successful at the pre-action stage challenging her visit visa application and the SSHD agreed to make a decision within 3 months. On the SSHD's failure to do so, the Applicant issued judicial review proceedings, which the SSHD eventually settled by paying her costs.

The Applicant had been successful in previous judicial review proceedings wherein the SSHD promised a new decision on his short-term study visa application within a certain timeframe. On the SSHD's failure to honour its timeframe, these proceedings were issued. The SSHD settled the claim outright, proposing to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's application to enter the UK as a visitor and maintained its decision. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD conceded to the submissions and settled the claim by agreeing to reconsider the visit visa application and pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant's asylum claim had been refused and certified. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the asylum claim and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's application to enter the UK as a visitor and maintained its decision. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD conceded to the submissions and settled the claim by agreeing to reconsider the visit visa application and pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant had been successful in previous judicial review proceedings wherein the SSHD promised a new decision on his visitor application within a certain timeframe. On the SSHD's failure to honour its timeframe, these proceedings were issued. The SSHD settled the claim outright, proposing to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's application to enter the UK as a visitor and maintained its decision. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD conceded to the submissions and settled the claim by agreeing to reconsider the visit visa application and pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant's asylum claim had been refused and certified. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the asylum claim and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's application for indefinite leave to remain. The Applicant issued judicial review proceedings without an administrative review and sought expedition, which was granted along with permission. This forced the SSHD to withdraw its decision and reconsider. In settling the claim, the SSHD also agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant had been refused entry clearance as a visitor. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD conceded the claim and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD cancelled the Applicant's leave to remain as a skilled worker and refused to overturn it at pre-action stage. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD conceded to the submissions and withdrew the decision outright. The SSHD agreed to pay the Claimant's costs and for the claim to be transferred to the County Court for quantum of damages.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's application to enter the UK as a visitor twice at pre-action stage. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD conceded to the submissions and settled the claim by agreeing to reconsider the visit visa application and pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had agreed to make and serve the reconsideration of the Applicant's visit visa application before its own proposed deadline. On the SSHD's failure to meet the deadline, the Applicant issued proceedings and achieved the remedy sought, with the SSHD agreeing to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant sought leave to enter the UK as a visitor. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the decision and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant sought leave to enter the UK as a visitor. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the decision and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD refused the Applicant's entry clearance as a student dependent on the allegation of deception. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the application and pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's skilled worker visa application after interviewing him. The Applicant challenged this by judicial review as the interview conducted was unlawful. The SSHD agreed to reconsider his application and pay his costs in settling the claim.

The SSHD failed to provide a certified copy of the Applicant's passport despite repeated requests. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD provided the remedy sought and agreed to pay his costs.

The Applicant's asylum claim had been refused and certified. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the asylum claim and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant had sought leave to remain as a visitor but the application had been refused. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the decision and pay his costs.

The SSHD cancelled the Applicant's leave with immediate effect and did not provide her with 60 days leave to remain. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the decision and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant sought leave to enter the UK as a visitor. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the decision and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant had applied for leave to enter the UK as a skilled worker but her application was refused on the basis of deception and she was banned from travelling to the UK for 10 years. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider its decision and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant was refused permission to enter the UK as a skilled worker and the SSHD issued a 10-year travel ban. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the application and pay her costs.

The Applicant had made an application to settle under the EU Settlement Scheme. On the SSHD's delay, the Applicant issued proceedings. The claim was settled with the SSHD providing a clear timeframe and agreeing to pay his costs.

The SSHD had agreed to make and serve the Applicant's asylum claim outcome by a set deadline in line with a sealed consent order but failed to do so. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD conceded the claim and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD refused the Applicant's skilled worker visa application. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to settle the claim and pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant had been refused entry clearance as a visitor. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD conceded the claim and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant issued judicial review proceedings on account of the SSHD's failure to withdraw his asylum decision. The claim was settled by consent and the SSHD paid the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD refused the Applicant's visit visa application. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD decided to reconsider the application and agreed to pay his costs.

The SSHD failed to issue the Applicant's BRP. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD provided the remedy sought and the Applicant was awarded her costs.

The Applicant had requested the SSHD to vary her immigration bail conditions so she could report online or by telephone. The SSHD refused and, upon issuing proceedings, the Upper Tribunal granted permission on the papers. Following that, the SSHD conceded the claim and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had rejected the Applicant's further submissions. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to make a new decision and settled the claim by paying the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant's student dependent visa application had been refused. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD issued a new decision and settled the claim by paying the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had curtailed the Applicant's leave to remain application despite the Applicant's sponsor licence having only been suspended. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD withdrew the decision curtailing the leave and reinstated it, and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD cancelled the Applicant's leave retrospectively. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD decided to withdraw its decision and pay her costs.

The Applicant's asylum claim had been refused and certified. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the asylum claim and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had curtailed the Applicant's leave to remain application despite the Applicant's sponsor licence having only been suspended. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD withdrew the decision curtailing the leave and reinstated it, and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's application and then decided to reconsider it at administrative review stage. On the SSHD's failure to make and issue a decision, or give a timeframe, the Applicant issued judicial review proceedings, following which the SSHD agreed to settle the claim by issuing a new decision.

The SSHD had curtailed the Applicant's leave to remain application despite the Applicant's sponsor licence having only been suspended. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD withdrew the decision curtailing the leave and reinstated it, and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant had applied for entry clearance from within Afghanistan. The SSHD was required to pre-determine the application but she was forced to issue proceedings on account of delay. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD provided the remedy sought and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's entry clearance application. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD conceded the claim and agreed to grant the Applicant's application.

The SSHD refused the Applicant's visit visa application and banned him from entering the UK for 10 years on the allegation of deception. Upon issuing proceedings, the ban was removed and the SSHD agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant had claimed asylum in the UK but was forced to issue judicial review proceedings as a result of the SSHD's considerable delay in making and serving a decision. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD served the decision and was ordered by the Upper Tribunal to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant had claimed asylum in the UK but was forced to issue judicial review proceedings as a result of the SSHD's considerable delay in making and serving a decision. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD served the decision and was ordered by the Upper Tribunal to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD refused the Applicant's visit visa application. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD decided to reconsider the application and agreed to pay her costs.

The SSHD cancelled the Applicant's leave for the third time after previous judicial review proceedings. Upon issuing these proceedings, the SSHD once again conceded the claim and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant's asylum claim had been refused and certified. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the asylum claim and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had failed to comply with a sealed consent order issued in previous proceedings by failing to issue the Applicant with her BRP card. Upon these proceedings being issued, the SSHD agreed to settle the claim and pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant's asylum claim had been refused and certified. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the asylum claim and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's skilled worker visa application on the basis that she had employed deception, and she had been banned from entering the UK for 10 years. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider its decision, including the allegation of deception.

The Applicant had been granted leave to remain but the SSHD consistently failed to provide her with her ARC card. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to provide the ARC card within 10 days of the consent order being sealed.

The SSHD failed to comply with the sealed consent order of previous proceedings, prompting these proceedings. Upon issue, the Respondent made and served the decisions in question and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs on an indemnity basis.

The SSHD cancelled the Applicant's leave whilst he was in the UK. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD issued a new decision, rendering the claim academic. The claim was settled and the SSHD agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Claimant's asylum claim. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD reinstated the asylum claim and agreed to settle the claim by paying his costs.

The SSHD, after granting the Applicant leave to enter the UK, cancelled the leave with retrospective effect whilst she was in the UK. Upon issuing proceedings, the leave was reinstated and the SSHD agreed to pay her costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's entry clearance application on the basis of deception. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the Upper Tribunal granted permission on account of him not being given an opportunity to address the allegation.

The Applicant's asylum claim had been refused and certified. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the asylum claim and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had placed the Applicant on immigration bail and refused to withdraw it without providing reasons. The Applicant issued judicial review proceedings, following which the SSHD withdrew the bail and agreed to pay her costs.

The SSHD had made an inadmissibility decision against the Applicant's asylum claim. Upon issuing these proceedings, the SSHD accepted that its inadmissibility notice was wrong and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant had filed an out-of-time appeal and requested the First Tier Tribunal for an extension of time. The FTT refused, and the Applicant issued judicial review proceedings against the FTT. The Upper Tribunal found in favour of the Applicant, remitted the matter to the FTT for reconsideration and ordered the FTT to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant had made an FLR(FP) application. There had been a delay of almost 2 years, forcing the Applicant to issue judicial review proceedings. Upon issue, the SSHD made the decision and settled the claim by paying the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant had claimed asylum in the UK but was forced to issue judicial review proceedings as a result of the SSHD's considerable delay in making and serving a decision. Upon issue, the SSHD served the decision and was ordered by the Upper Tribunal to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had cancelled the Applicant's student visa whilst he was in the UK. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD granted his fresh leave to remain application as a student and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's entry clearance on the allegation that she had attempted to deceive the SSHD, and she had been banned from the UK for 10 years. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD conceded the allegation of deception and the 10-year ban, and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had granted the Applicant entry clearance. Whilst en route to the UK she was interviewed in transit and her visa was cancelled, requiring her to return home. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the decision was reconsidered, the Applicant was eventually able to enter the UK and the SSHD paid the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's skilled worker dependent visa application. On an administrative review application the SSHD took a significant time to decide, prompting proceedings. After proceedings were issued, the SSHD granted the visa and settled the claim by paying his costs.

The Applicants issued judicial review proceedings upon the SSHD's failure to implement their grant of leave to remain following withdrawal of their appeal. They sought and were granted expedition from the Upper Tribunal. Eventually the SSHD agreed to implement the grant of leave in settling the claim and to pay the Applicants' costs.

The Applicant had made an application for leave to remain based on her family and private life in August 2022. Following considerable delay, she issued judicial review proceedings challenging the SSHD's failure to make a decision or provide a timeframe. Upon issue, the SSHD granted the application and agreed to pay her costs.

These proceedings were issued following the ongoing failure by the SSHD to make and serve a decision for the Applicant's visit visa application, which had been pending more than 3 months. Upon issue, the SSHD made and served the decision and settled the claim by paying the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD sought to remove the Applicant from the UK by issuing a deportation order. The Applicant issued judicial review proceedings challenging it. Following issue, the SSHD revoked its deportation order and settled the claim by paying the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD implicitly withdrew the Applicant's claim for asylum, prompting judicial review proceedings. Permission was granted by the Upper Tribunal, following which the SSHD agreed to settle the claim and pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's application for leave to enter the UK as a visitor. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD agreed to settle the claim by reconsidering the application and to pay her costs.

The Applicant's skilled worker visa application had been refused and she had been banned from entering the UK for 10 years on the allegation of deception. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD decided to reconsider the application and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant's asylum claim had been refused and certified. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the asylum claim and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had cancelled the Applicant's leave to enter the UK upon landing. The Applicant successfully challenged this decision by judicial review, following which the SSHD also agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had cancelled the Applicant's leave as a student after he had arrived in the UK, based on his interview at the border. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD accepted that it had conducted the interview in a procedurally unfair manner and that he was a genuine student. The Respondent also paid the Applicant his costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's skilled worker visa application, alleging he had employed deception. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the Respondent withdrew the decision refusing his visa and the allegation of deception, and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's visit visa. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the Respondent granted the visa. The claim was concluded and the UTJ ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's visit visa application. This was challenged by judicial review and the SSHD decided to settle the matter and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had refused the Applicant's right to work on the basis that her asylum claim had concluded, which was not correct as no decision had been made. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD reconsidered its decision and agreed to pay her legal costs.

The Applicants were stopped at the airport and their permission to enter the UK was cancelled, together with removal directions. They issued judicial review proceedings to challenge their removal and cancellation of leave, following which the SSHD withdrew its decisions and agreed to pay the Applicants' legal costs.

The Applicant issued proceedings against the SSHD's decision to refuse his visit visa application. After issue, the SSHD conceded to the submissions and decided to make a new decision, and agreed to pay his legal costs.

The Applicant had sought to enter the UK as a visitor but her application was refused and she was banned from entering for 10 years. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, permission was granted by the Upper Tribunal on the papers, and the SSHD promptly conceded, agreeing to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had agreed to make and serve a decision for the Applicant's visit visa application by a certain timeframe. On its failure to do so, the Applicant issued proceedings, following which the SSHD finally agreed to grant the Applicant permission to enter the UK as a visitor.

The Applicant issued these proceedings following the rejection of her further submissions for the second time. The SSHD had previously conceded a judicial review for wrongly rejecting the same submissions. Upon issue, the SSHD again conceded to the arguments raised and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant had been detained by the UKBF and refused entry due to her responses in interview. She issued judicial review proceedings contending the interview was procedurally unfair. The claim was refused at permission stage and taken to the Court of Appeal, which granted permission and remitted the case to the Upper Tribunal. Before the substantive hearing, the SSHD proposed to settle and the Applicant was awarded partial costs.

The Applicant had applied for an EUSS application which he sought to withdraw as he had been granted indefinite leave to remain. The pending EUSS application hindered his right to work, and despite multiple requests the SSHD did not withdraw it. He issued proceedings, following which the SSHD withdrew his EUSS application and agreed to pay his costs.

The Applicant's asylum claim had been pending for 37 months. He issued proceedings challenging the SSHD's delay, following which the SSHD agreed to decide his claim within 3 months and pay his costs.

The Applicant had claimed asylum in the UK, pending for over 2 years. He issued proceedings on account of the persisting delay and the SSHD's failure to provide a deadline. After issue, the SSHD provided a timeframe and the Upper Tribunal awarded costs to the Applicant.

The Applicant challenged the SSHD's decision to refuse his visit visa application for the 4th time. Upon issuing proceedings, the SSHD proposed to settle by making a new decision, did not contest the claim, and agreed to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had not objected to making and serving a decision for the Applicant's pending visit visa application by his proposed deadline. Despite a clear deadline and a subsequent chaser, no decision was forthcoming. The Applicant issued judicial review proceedings. The claim was ultimately withdrawn and the Applicant was awarded his costs.

The SSHD had implicitly withdrawn the Applicant's asylum claim on the allegation of him not attending his asylum interview. However, the SSHD had failed to serve the invitation notice to his address or inform him by telephone, despite knowing both. Upon issuing judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to settle the claim by withdrawing the withdrawal decision.

The SSHD had refused the visit visa application of two Applicants from India. The caseworker looked only at the first page of the bank statement and concluded there were no transactions, where complete statements for 6 months had been provided. Once raised at judicial review stage, the SSHD offered to reconsider and was ordered to pay the Applicants' legal costs.

The SSHD had re-refused this elderly client's visit visa application after already losing a previous judicial review. The SSHD failed to disclose the interview transcript and the Applicant was interviewed in a language he did not choose and did not understand. Once raised in judicial review grounds, the SSHD withdrew the decision and conceded the claim with costs.

The SSHD had previously conceded a judicial review in respect of delay and undertook to make a fresh decision by 15 March 2023. The SSHD again failed to make a decision, and did not do so despite a pre-action protocol. Once proceedings were issued, the SSHD promptly conceded with costs and agreed to make a decision within 10 days.

The SSHD previously conceded the judicial review claim and agreed to make a decision within 3 months. Despite the three months passing, no decision was received and the SSHD failed to settle at pre-action stage. Once proceedings were issued, the SSHD informed that she had sent the decision to previous legal representatives and conceded the claim with costs.

The Applicant challenged the SSHD's delay in implementing the appeal, thereby delaying his right to work. Once proceedings were issued, the SSHD promptly granted leave to remain and conceded the claim, and was ordered to pay the Applicant's costs.

The SSHD had issued a BRP card to this Applicant without right to work. This was raised with the SSHD but she failed to rectify it, and a subsequent pre-action protocol was ignored. Once proceedings were issued, the SSHD issued the correct BRP and conceded the claim with costs. The Applicant now also has a damages claim pending.

The SSHD conceded the claim, whereby she had refused the application of a 71-year-old woman suffering from dementia. Following grant of permission by an Upper Tribunal Judge, the SSHD conceded and was ordered to pay costs of the proceedings.

The Applicants challenged the SSHD's delay in deciding their asylum claim for over 2 years. The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and offered to make a decision within the next 2 months.

The Applicant challenged the SSHD's delay in deciding his asylum claim. The SSHD promptly granted the asylum claim and conceded the claim with costs.

The Applicant challenged the SSHD's delay in deciding his EUSS application. The SSHD undertook to make a decision promptly and agreed to pay legal costs of these proceedings.

The Applicant challenged the SSHD's delay in making a decision on his asylum claim. Following issue, permission was granted on the papers by the Upper Tribunal, after which the SSHD proposed to settle by agreeing to make a decision within 3 months and to pay the Applicant's costs.

The Applicant challenged the SSHD's delay in deciding his asylum claim. The SSHD promptly made a decision granting his asylum claim, conceded the claim and was ordered to pay the legal costs.

The Applicant challenged the SSHD's delay in refusing his application for ILR. The SSHD subsequently withdrew the decision under challenge and conceded the claim with costs.

The Applicant challenged the Home Office's refusal of his domestic violence application and argued his previous legal representatives' poor conduct. The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision. When instructed, the Applicant had already become an overstayer, and this success means he again becomes lawfully resident and the Home Office will consider his application afresh.

The Applicant challenged the SSHD's decision to refuse his entry clearance application as a visitor. The SSHD had failed to understand his official tax returns. The Applicant highlighted how the SSHD did not have a basic understanding of reading tax returns. The SSHD promptly conceded the claim with costs.

The SSHD had refused this elderly client's visit visa application. Following grant of permission by an Upper Tribunal Judge, the SSHD promptly conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge.

The SSHD conceded the claim whereby a delay in deciding the application of the Applicant, who was suffering from severe mental health issues, was challenged. The SSHD was also ordered to pay costs of the proceedings.

The Applicant challenged delay on the part of the SSHD in determining his asylum claim. The SSHD promptly granted his asylum claim and conceded the judicial review with costs.

The Applicant challenged the SSHD's delay of 6.5 years in determining his asylum claim. The SSHD relied on the argument that the Applicant had a pending criminal prosecution, which the Applicant disputed, and the Upper Tribunal Judge granted permission. Following that, the SSHD confirmed it had made a mistake and there was no pending prosecution. The SSHD immediately granted the asylum claim and offered to pay costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim, withdrew the deportation order and agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

The SSHD had failed to refund the super priority fee after being unable to make a decision in 24 hours, and disregarded multiple correspondences including pre-action correspondence. Once proceedings were issued, the SSHD refunded the fee and conceded the claim with costs.

The SSHD contested this claim, having relied on a UAE earnings threshold for opening a bank account in the UAE taken from a random website which itself stated the figures were for illustrative purposes only. Once proceedings were issued and this was brought to the Tribunal's attention, the SSHD conceded the claim, was ordered to pay costs and withdrew the decision under challenge.

The SSHD contested the claim in respect of delay but promptly granted the asylum claim of this PhD graduate. The issue of costs was determined by the Upper Tribunal Judge and the SSHD was ordered to pay the Applicant's complete legal costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim where she had granted the Applicant a BRP for 16 days instead of 16 months. The SSHD was also ordered to pay costs of the proceedings.

The SSHD's delay in deciding an in-time application for over 2.5 years was challenged by judicial review. The SSHD promptly granted leave but disputed costs. Following costs submissions, the Upper Tribunal Judge ordered the SSHD to pay all the legal costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs, where the Applicant had challenged a delay of over 2.5 years in deciding his in-time application for leave to remain.

The SSHD conceded the claim in respect of delay in an out of country application and was ordered to pay costs of the proceedings.

The SSHD conceded the claim in respect of delay in implementing an appeal, with costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim where she had refused entry clearance as a student on past immigration history, and was ordered to pay the Applicant's legal costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim, wherein she had failed to issue the BRP card of the Applicant for over 3 months.

The SSHD conceded the claim and agreed to pay costs, following grant of expedition by an Upper Tribunal Judge.

The SSHD contested the claim in respect of delay and refusing the application on deception but failing to provide disclosure. Permission was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Sheridan, following which the SSHD conceded the claim with costs and granted entry clearance to the Applicant.

The SSHD conceded the claim following grant of permission by an Upper Tribunal Judge, who termed the delay in deciding the application as arguably unlawful. The SSHD also agreed to pay costs and to make a decision promptly.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs for failing to decide the Applicant's application within 3 months as agreed.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs after her decision to refuse the Applicant was challenged by judicial review, wherein she had refused on the basis of a remote interview. We were able to show that the entire interviewing process was flawed.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge O'Callaghan, and withdrew the decision under challenge whereby the Applicant's Tier 4 application had been refused due to a criminal conviction.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry clearance as a visitor.

The Claimant challenged the delay in deciding revocation of his British nationality. The SSHD promptly issued the decision but contested costs. Fordham J awarded costs to the claimant.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry clearance as a Tier 1 Entrepreneur. The applicant was subsequently granted entry clearance as a Tier 1 Entrepreneur.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry clearance as a Tier 1 Entrepreneur, following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Keith.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge to refuse the applicant's ILR application.

The SSHD failed to follow the consent order in JR/5471/2019, and this failure to comply with the Court Order was challenged. The SSHD conceded the claim with costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim alleging failure to implement the Court Order in JR/5618/2019, with costs.

The matter was against the SSHD's unreasonable delay in deciding the Applicant's application.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew a second decision under challenge to refuse the applicant's ILR application, following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to refund the applicant's Home Office fee for previous application(s).

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to withdraw the decision under challenge. The SSHD had relied on a medical expert disputing a qualified psychiatrist's reports, but on research by Mr Jamali it transpired that the SSHD's medical expert was in fact a GP with specialisation in dermatology.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse the applicant's further submissions following grant of permission by Mrs Justice Foster DBE. The case related to a Tier 1 Entrepreneur applicant wrongly advised by a previous legal representative.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse the applicant's further submissions following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Norton-Taylor. The case related to medical evidence for the minor child of the applicant not properly considered under 276ADE and Section 55 BCIA 2009.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry to the claimant and remove him from the United Kingdom. The SSHD subsequently also paid damages for unlawfully detaining the claimant.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the removal window issued to remove the applicant. The applicant was subsequently granted a residence card under the EEA Regulations.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse the applicants' application as Tier 1 Entrepreneur, following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Latter. The applicants were subsequently granted leave and the SSHD refunded their Home Office fees.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge to refuse the applicant's ILR application.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse the applicant's ILR application, following a contested hearing where permission was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede. The case involved cross-checking the subject access report to show the SSHD had wrongly detained the applicant some 4 years earlier and his case had remained outstanding throughout. The SSHD subsequently granted ILR.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to withdraw the decision rejecting the applicant's further evidence in relation to his asylum claim.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to withdraw the decision rejecting the applicant's further evidence in relation to his asylum claim, following grant of permission at a contested oral hearing by Upper Tribunal Judge Smith.

The SSHD conceded the claim and agreed to withdraw the decision to remove the applicant. The SSHD disputed costs but Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman awarded costs to the applicant.

The SSHD revoked the applicant's ILR based on deception and made numerous allegations. Mr Jamali refused to comment on the allegations and sought disclosure. The SSHD never made disclosure and conceded the claim with costs.

The SSHD's supplemental decision to issue a bail form prohibiting the applicant from employment was successfully challenged. The SSHD conceded the bail form with costs. During this time the applicant also applied and was naturalised as a British national.

The SSHD conceded the claim to issue a removal window notice to the applicant and agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

The SSHD conceded the claim to issue a removal window notice to the applicant and agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

The SSHD conceded the claim to refuse the applicant's ILR application under Turkey-ECAA, by drawing negative inferences but not allowing the applicant an opportunity to respond. The SSHD also agreed to pay the applicant's costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim to issue a removal window notice to the applicant and agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

The SSHD conceded the claim to refuse the applicant's ILR application under Turkey-ECAA, by drawing negative inferences but not allowing an opportunity to respond, following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb. The SSHD also agreed to pay the applicant's costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim to issue a removal window notice to the applicant but disputed costs. Upper Tribunal Judge Sheridan awarded costs to the applicant.

The SSHD conceded the claim to refuse the permanent residence application of the applicant, with costs. The applicant was subsequently granted permanent residence.

The SSHD conceded the claim to refuse to refund the application fee of the applicants' previous application from 2011, and agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

The SSHD conceded the claim for failing to return the sponsor's BRP card, with costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim to refuse the applicant's application under Turkey-ECAA, with costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim paying 50% costs of the matter, for failing to decide the Applicant's application for a residence card on the basis of extended family member.

The SSHD detained the Applicant by refusing his application for leave to remain and serving him in person while reporting. The SSHD withdrew the decision by which the application became outstanding and paid costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim refusing the Applicant's application for leave to remain submitted in October 2017, whereas while the application was pending the Applicant had filed an ILR application which had the legal effect of superseding it.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs, refusing the Applicant's application for entry clearance as a visitor stating he had failed to pay a litigation debt from his previous judicial review. The SSHD's position was incorrect because the Applicant had paid before making the application.

The SSHD conceded the claim refusing the Applicant's application for leave to remain, agreeing to reconsider her decision and issue a new decision.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs, refusing the Applicant's application for Tier 4 student.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and provided the route to apply for BRP.

The UTJ order stated the SSHD to pay the Applicant's costs on the basis that the SSHD had issued a removal window in the decision and maintained it at PAP stage.

The SSHD conceded with costs, reconsidering the Applicant's application for Indefinite leave to remain, having failed to make a decision on the AR.

The matter was against the SSHD's decision on the applications filed in February and April 2016. Balajigari v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 673 was raised, that a human rights claim should be recognised while making the decision.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs for failing to return the Applicant's passport.

The SSHD refused the applicant's application for naturalisation based on an outstanding litigation debt. The decision was successfully challenged and the SSHD conceded on the issue of litigation debt but disputed costs. Upper Tribunal Judge Pitt awarded costs to the applicant.

The SSHD withdrew the decision to refuse entry at port and conceded the claim, agreeing to pay costs and damages for unlawful detention.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs, withdrawing the decision certifying the Applicant's asylum claim and agreeing to issue a new decision within 3 months.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs, agreeing to reconsider the Applicant's application for entry clearance as a visitor to the UK.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to issue the BRC within 1 month of the sealed consent order.

The SSHD agreed to withdraw the removal window issued in the decision for the application of discretionary leave and conceded the claim with costs.

The SSHD conceded this matter against the decisions for the application of leave to remain and maintained at the Administrative Review.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge. The case raised an important issue of extending the High Court's principle in MK v SSHD [2017] EWHC 1365 to register stateless children over 5 years of age as British nationals, to granting leave to remain to stateless children under 5. The SSHD conceded only once permission had been granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs, refusing the application for leave to remain on the basis of a British partner and children in which the Applicant was the primary carer of his partner.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs for failing to issue the permanent residence card to the Applicant, and issued it right after the proceedings were issued.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs for failing to decide the Applicant's application for Tier 4 student within 3 months of the court order.

The SSHD conceded the claim having granted asylum to the Applicant, and agreed to pay costs for the proceedings.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse the Applicant's application of Tier 1 Entrepreneur.

The SSHD conceded the claim on unreasonable delay on her side to decide the application within the given timeframe.

This case involved the SSHD's repeated unlawful decision making in respect of the Applicant's permanent residence application. The Respondent conceded the claim once permanent residence had been granted and was ordered to pay legal costs.

This case concerned the SSHD's delay in considering the Applicant's Tier 1 Entrepreneur application. Following expedition granted by an Upper Tribunal Judge, the SSHD issued the decision and conceded the claim with costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim against delay in implementing the decision of the First Tier Tribunal. The SSHD promptly implemented the First Tier's decision and was ordered to pay costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to reconsider the decision refusing the applicant's Tier 1 Entrepreneur extension application for the second time. Both applications had been submitted by a previous legal representative and refused. Once the judicial review succeeded, detailed evidence was provided and Tier 1 Entrepreneur leave to remain was granted.

The SSHD made a subsequent decision while the initial decision was challenged, making the initial challenge academic, and disputed costs. Following written submissions, Upper Tribunal Judge Kopieczek awarded costs to the applicant.

The SSHD agreed to reconsider the application for Tier 1 Entrepreneur and issue a new decision within 3 months, and conceded the claim with costs.

The SSHD conceded with costs, agreeing to reconsider the application for an EEA residence card.

The SSHD agreed to reconsider the Applicant's application for a permanent residence card. The claim was conceded with costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs, in which the curtailment decision was never served on the client.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs, refusing the Applicant's application for leave to remain and remove him from the UK.

The SSHD accepted that she erred when she rejected the application for leave to remain and agreed to reconsider the Applicant's application as the partner of a Tier 4 migrant. The SSHD lost the claim and paid costs.

The matter was challenged against the SSHD's decision to treat the FLR(FP) application as a variation of the ILR application. The matter was conceded with costs.

The SSHD conceded this matter, having rejected the application as being invalid.

The SSHD conceded with costs, refusing the Applicant's application for Tier 1 Entrepreneur, and paid costs.

The SSHD's unreasonable delay in deciding the application filed in March 2015. The SSHD refused to pay the Applicant's costs and the matter proceeded to costs submissions. UTJ Gill considered the matter and an order was made for the SSHD to pay the costs to the Applicant.

The SSHD refused the client's Tier 1 Entrepreneur application for ILR based on the accelerated route, alleging he must show 10 full-time jobs for 12 months. The SSHD conceded the claim following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Perkins and agreed to pay costs. The applicant was subsequently granted ILR.

The SSHD lost the judicial review claim and her decision to refuse the ILR application of applicants based on the Tier 1 Entrepreneur accelerated route was quashed by Mr Justice Lavender following a substantive hearing. The SSHD paid 80% costs and the applicants were subsequently granted ILR.

The SSHD conceded on the basis that the Applicants were granted Indefinite leave to remain and agreed to refund the Home Office fees and AR fee in relation to the Applicants' second refusal.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to withdraw the decision under challenge relating to paragraph 322(5). The applicant was subsequently granted ILR.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs, refusing the Applicant's application for leave to remain and remove him from the UK.

The Applicant made a Tier 1 Entrepreneur application which was refused and an AR filed. Due to an incorrect date on the decision and a different serving date, the SSHD did not accept the AR. After filing evidence of the in-time AR, there was unreasonable delay in deciding the application. A PAP was filed leading to judicial review, and the SSHD conceded the claim with costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs, refusing the Applicant's application for Tier 1 Entrepreneur.

The SSHD lost the matter to reject the application for leave to remain. Later, the SSHD agreed to reconsider the application and paid costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim refusing the application for leave to remain as Tier 1 Entrepreneur.

The SSHD conceded the claim, refusing the Applicant's application for leave to remain which was superseded with a Tier 4 application, and withdrew the decision.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs, withdrew the IS.96 and agreed the Applicant's leave will continue by virtue of Section 3C of the IA 1971, and granted 60 days to make a new application following return of the passport.

The case involved consideration of what amounts to a permitted course for the student. Following grant of oral permission by an Upper Tribunal Judge, the Home Office conceded the claim with costs.

The Health Secretary agreed to pay damages to this client who suffered a heart attack while in a Managed Quarantine Facility, and also agreed to pay complete costs of this lengthy litigation and the entire judicial review proceedings.

The claim was issued against a travel agency for failing to pay legal costs. A previous proposed litigation resulted in the travel agent paying damages and agreeing to pay the legal costs. Once proceedings were issued, the travel agency promptly paid the legal costs.

The SSHD issued a £10,000 fine to the Claimant for breaching a Managed Quarantine Facility. Mr Jamali challenged the legality of the fine and the SSHD promptly withdrew it. Mr Jamali then claimed damages and the SSHD paid £6,000 in damages to the Claimant.

The SSHD issued a £10,000 fine to the Claimant for breaching a Managed Quarantine Facility. Mr Jamali challenged the legality of the fine and the SSHD promptly withdrew it. Mr Jamali then claimed damages and the SSHD paid £6,000 in damages to the Claimant.

The SSHD agreed to pay damages of £15,750 to the Claimant for entering the Claimant's home and unlawfully detaining him. The Claimant's visa was also reinstated.

The SSHD agreed to pay damages of £15,750 to the Claimant for entering the Claimant's home and unlawfully detaining him. The Claimant's visa was also reinstated.

The SSHD agreed to pay damages and legal costs for refusing entry to the Claimant at the airport, and subsequently granted him entry into the United Kingdom.

After first conceding the judicial review in the High Court, the SSHD also conceded the claim for unlawful detention in Central London County Court and paid damages to the claimant for unlawful detention along with all legal costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim of unlawful detention in Central London County Court with costs and paid damages for unlawfully detaining the claimant.

The SSHD conceded the claim with costs for unlawful detention in the Central London County Court and agreed to pay damages for unlawful detention.

The SSHD conceded the proposed claim with costs in respect of unlawful detention of the applicant nearly 5 years earlier. The applicant had been represented by a different legal representative and it had never been checked whether he had been unlawfully detained and his case wrongly refused.

The SSHD, after conceding the judicial review claim with costs, also conceded the claim for unlawful detention and agreed to pay damages to the claimant.

The SSHD was unable to remove the claimant from the United Kingdom following a successful challenge to removal and unlawful detention, which was subsequently conceded by the SSHD with costs and damages.

The SSHD conceded the claim for loss of earnings for the time his ILR had been unlawfully revoked, and agreed to pay damages to the applicant for his loss of earnings.

The Defendant conceded the claim and paid damages and costs to the Claimant, after first conceding the judicial review claim following grant of permission by the High Court.

After succeeding in the Upper Tribunal, the UKVI granted leave to remain to the Applicant. We then challenged the SSHD to pay damages for loss of earnings. The SSHD conceded the claim and paid costs and damages.

The SSHD agreed to pay damages to the Applicant following delay in issuing his BRP card.

The employer had terminated the Claimant's contract and sponsorship before the end of the notice period. The employer and employee reached a settlement agreement as a result of our letter before action, and the employer agreed to extend the sponsorship for a further three months.

A warrant of eviction was issued against the tenant (our client) following possession proceedings relating to mortgage arrears. Following our application to suspend the warrant and/or stay execution, the Claimant withdrew the eviction one day before it was due to take place.

Defamation proceedings. The Claimant obtained default judgment against the Defendant for publishing defamatory and derogatory material. The Court awarded damages and costs, restrained further defamatory publications and ordered the Defendant to publish an apology together with a summary of the judgment.

Following commencement of proceedings, the Defendant conceded the claim arising from the Claimant's exclusion from university after accepting the Defendant's offer, paying the tuition fees and successfully completing her modules. The Defendant agreed to pay damages and the Claimant's legal costs.

The Defendant conceded the proposed claims arising from a delayed flight resulting in loss of holiday enjoyment and disruption to pre-arranged travel plans. The Defendant agreed to compensate all Claimants.

The SSHD conceded the claim arising from an unlawful allegation of deception made during the Claimant's visa application, by accepting the Claimant's Part 36 offer and agreeing to settle the claim.

Following conclusion of judicial review proceedings, the SSHD conceded that part of the Claimant's detention was unlawful and agreed to pay damages and costs arising from the unlawful detention.

The SSHD conceded the proposed claim arising from negligence, misfeasance in public office and breaches of Article 8 ECHR relating to the handling of the Claimant's immigration matter, and agreed to pay damages to the Claimant.

The Defendant conceded the claim arising from an unsatisfactory holiday package resulting in financial loss and loss of enjoyment, and agreed to pay damages and the Claimant's legal costs.

The Defendant conceded the claim arising from the delayed return of the Claimants' luggage, causing financial loss and inconvenience, and agreed to compensate the Claimants for their damages, losses and costs.

The SSHD conceded the damages claim arising from the Claimant's unlawful detention despite having outstanding immigration applications and an active appeal extending his leave under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971, and agreed to pay damages to the Claimant.

The SSHD conceded the damages claim arising from the unlawful cancellation of the Claimants' leave following the erroneous revocation of their sponsor's licence, by way of settlement.

The SSHD conceded the appeal against the Civil Penalty Notice after failing to establish an employer-employee relationship and relying upon insufficient evidence. The SSHD withdrew the penalty in its entirety and agreed to pay the Appellant's costs.

The SSHD conceded the proposed claim arising from 20 days of unlawful detention under the tort of false imprisonment and breaches of Articles 3, 5 and 8 ECHR, and agreed to pay damages to the Claimant.

The SSHD conceded the proposed claim arising from 18 days of unlawful detention under the tort of false imprisonment and breaches of Articles 3, 5 and 8 ECHR, and agreed to pay damages to the Claimant.

The SSHD conceded the claim arising from 52 days of unlawful detention, challenged under the principles established in Hardial Singh, and agreed to pay damages to the Claimant.

Following conclusion of the judicial review proceedings, the SSHD also conceded the damages claim arising from the delay in determining the Claimant's settled status application and interference with the Claimant's entitlement to housing assistance. The SSHD agreed to pay £42,500 in damages together with the Claimant's legal costs.

The SSHD conceded the claim arising from prolonged delay and repeated procedural failings in determining the Claimant's immigration status, and agreed to pay substantial damages to the Claimant.

Following reinstatement of the Claimant's asylum claim, the SSHD conceded the damages claim arising from 48 days of unlawful detention following the unlawful implicit withdrawal of the asylum claim, and agreed to pay damages to the Claimant.

The SSHD conceded the claim arising from 42 days of unlawful detention after failing to lawfully serve the Claimant's asylum refusal decision, and agreed to pay damages to the Claimant.

The SSHD conceded the claim arising from 112 days of unlawful detention challenging the lawfulness of the Claimant's detention, and agreed to pay damages to the Claimant.