Ali Bandegani

MSU (S.104(4b) notices) Bangladesh [2019] UKUT 00412 
In this test case, before a panel comprised of the President and Vice President of the UTIAC, it was held that the Upper Tribunal has power to extend time for giving notice of continuance under s.104(4B) NIAA 2002. Despite the provisions of Upper Tribunal rule 17A(4), such a power can be derived from s.25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

R (on the application of MW) v SSHD (Fast track appeal: Devaseelan guidelines) [2019] UKUT 00411 (IAC)In this case, before the President of the UTIAC, it was held that when applying the guidelines from Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKAIT 702, the first judicial decision is “the starting point” for the subsequent judicial fact-finder. The “starting point” principle is not a legal straitjacket. It permits subsequent judicial fact-finders to depart from the earlier judicial decision on a principled and properly-reasoned basis

KV v SSHD (Helen Bamber Foundation, Freedom from Torture, and Medical Justice Intervening) [2019] UKSC 10 
A landmark case on the correct approach to expert evidence in asylum cases. The UKSC gave guidance on the role of medical experts, as well as the status and meaning of the Istanbul Protocol for the investigation of torture. Ali was instructed by all three NGOs in this successful intervention.

AS (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 873
In this appeal against a Country Guideline decision of the Upper Tribunal, Ali was instructed by the Intervener, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The court agreed with UNHCR’s core submission and provided guidance on how to assess whether a person can safely or reasonably relocate within their country of origin to avoid persecution or serious harm. 

R (N) v SSHD (JR/ 7389/2018) 
As a result of this judicial review, the SSHD agreed to amend her policy “Asylum Policy Instruction Withdrawing Asylum Claims Version 5.0” as it relates to individuals with disabilities and those who may lack mental capacity to include: (i) procedural safeguards and referral mechanisms relating to a person’s disability or mental capacity; (ii) reasonable adjustments in relation to the same, and; (iii) a procedure for re-opening an asylum previously treated as withdrawn. The SSHD also agreed to make decision makers aware of the lacuna in the policy and that a new policy is being prepared, and to provide appropriate training to all caseworkers on the above.

R (FB and another) v SSHD (Public Law Project Intervening) [2018] UKUT 428 (IAC) 
In the course of this judicial review the SSHD amended his removal policy to allow individuals to request access to advice, documents and the courts. The UT held the amended policy was, as a general matter, compatible with access to justice but legally deficient, both in its treatment of cases where a removal window is deferred and in the lack of information regarding place and route of removal. FB has permission to appeal to the court of appeal.

S.A.C. v United Kingdom, App no. 31428/2018
The ECtHR granted S.A.C. interim relief under rule 39 of the court’s procedures.

R (Bah) v SSHD [2018] EWHC 2942
Mr Bah had committed serious offences and was at high risk of re-offending. His administrative detention became unjustified when his mental health deteriorated. The court held the decision maker appeared to “focus on looking for reasons not to release rather than a clear application of the AAR policy in light of the new evidence.” Mr Bah received substantive damages for breaches of both the Hardial Singh principles and the Adults at Risk policy for the last 35 days of his detention.

Mwesezi v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 1104
Deportation appeal concerning application of s117C of the NIAA 2002.

KV (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2017] WLR(D) 159
Successful intervention on behalf of the Helen Bamber Foundation in which the Upper Tribunal's controversial guidance in KV (scarring - medical evidence) Sri Lanka [2014] UKUT 00230 was disapproved.

LT (Kosovo) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 1246
Authority on the tribunal's approach to deportation orders made on the basis that an individual's offending had caused "serious harm" per para. 398(c) of the immigration rules.

R (HN and SA) (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 123
Generic fresh claim case brought by 25 Afghan men who feared return to armed conflict in their home country. Ali secured 15 individual injunctions from the President of the Upper Tribunal, and with Sonali Naik QC secured a historic generic injunction preventing removal to Afghanistan from the Court of Appeal which caused the suspension of removals by charter flight to Afghanistan.

Sanneh & Ors v SSWP [2015] WLR(D) 62
Authority on issues concerning the entitlement to social benefits of non-EU nationals who were the primary carers of children who were EU citizens and British nationals.

R (Ali Zahid) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 4290
Held the SSHD's failure to give the Claimant notice of removal, then telling him removal would not occur, amounted to an illegality and the Claimant was entitled to more than nominal damages.

FA (Iraq) v SSHD [2010] 1 WLR 2545
Authority on the tribunal's jurisdiction in 'upgrade appeals' (s83. NIAA 2002) to determine status pursuant to subsidiary protection in addition to refugee status. Ali drafted initial permission applications for permission to appeal.

SM (Section 8: Judge's process) Iran [2006] INLR 149
Authority on approach to and meaning of s.8 of the 2004 Act concerning credibility.

Country Guideline cases

KH (Article 15(c) Qualification Directive) Iraq CG [2008] UKAIT 00023
Effectively became QD & AH (Iraq) -v- SSHD [2009] Imm AR 132, authority on the core scope and meaning of subsidiary protection in situations of armed conflict pursuant to Art. 15(c) of the Qualification Directive.

MA (Palestinian Arabs - Occupied Territories - Risk) CG [2007] UKAIT 00017
Held Palestinian males suspected of terrorist involvement by the Israeli state will be at real risk of persecution and/or Article 3. Denial of right of return without more does not give rise to a real risk of persecution, a finding upheld by the Court of Appeal: MA (Palestine) -v- SSHD [2008] Imm AR 617.

FK (FGM - Risk and Relocation) Kenya CG [2007] UKAIT 00041
Held a woman will be at real risk in her own home area if she comes from an ethnic group (or sub-group) where female genital mutilation (FGM) is practised but such women can reasonably relocate and will not be at risk of FGM from the 'Mungiki'. In the Court of Appeal it was held the tribunal did not consider FK's case with sufficient specificity: FK (Kenya) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 119.

NS (Iraq: perceived collaborator: relocation) Iraq CG [2007] UKAIT 00046
Held those suspected of perceived collaboration with Multi National Forces are at real risk of persecution and/or Article 3 ECHR breach in Iraq. No internal relocation to the Kurdish Region.

LM (Educated women - Chaldo-Assyrians - risk) Iraq CG [2006] UKAIT 00060
Held that Christian, English-speaking Iraqi women are at real risk of persecution because of the armed conflict in Iraq. There is no possibility of relocating to the Kurdish Region.