Ali Bandegani

Overview

Gurung, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ACRS meaning – policy interpretation principles) [2025] UKUT 90: Dove J and UTJ Keith set out 10 principles relevant to the interpretation of policy guidance by courts and tribunals.

MA, and MP1 v SSFCDA & SSD [2025] EWCA Civ 77: Andrews LJ (with whom Laing LJ agreed) refused the Government departments permission to appeal as the issues had become academic following the decision to grant leave outside the Immigration Rules to MA and MP1. The court emphasised the interpretation of the ARAP conditions had been definitely settled by the Court in LND1 v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 278; [2024] 1 WLR 4433 and there was no need to revisit the matter. Ali represented MP1.

B4 v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 900: Singh LJ (with whom Jackson LJ and Holroyde LJ agreed) held that national security advice given to the Secretary of State in deprivation of nationality cases must be fair and balanced, and whether there has been procedural fairness is an objective question for the court to determine itself, not a Wednesbury review.

MP1, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence [2024] EWHC 410 (Admin): Mr Justice Julian Knowles ruled that the decision of the Defence Secretary rejecting the (anonymous) claimant’s application for relocation to the UK pursuant to the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (“ARAP”), was unlawful.

R (VT & Ors) v Commissioner of the British Indian Overseas Territories (BIOT/SC/No.1 & 2/2023): Following a grant of permission by the BIOT Supreme Court, the Commissioner agreed to amend the asylum determination procedure in Diego Garcia by providing a ‘minded-to’ process. See coverage: The Guardian.

R (DM) v SSHD (UNHCR intervening) [2023] EWHC 740 (Admin): Lavender J heard a judicial review of the SSHD’s failure to provide a route under the immigration rules for child refugees to reunite with their parents. Ali represented the UNHCR, which intervened in the case.

R (AAA) & Ors v SSHD (UNHCR intervening) [2022] EWHC 3230: Lewis LJ and Swift J declared that individual decisions made by the SSHD were unlawful and directed they be remade. Ali acted for the two lead claimants.

R (Bari) v MOJ, Kent Magistrates Court, Kent Crown Court (DPP as interested party) [2022] (unreported): Lavender J quashed Mr Bari’s conviction under s.24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (entering the UK without leave).

R (BA (Afghanistan)) v SSHD, FCDO, MOD [2022] EWHC 1422 (Admin): Choudhary J held that the procedure adopted to reconsider BA’s application for evacuation from Afghanistan under ‘Operation Pitting’ was fair.

R (Watson) (s. 94B process; s.25 powers) v SSHD [2022] UKUT 00156 (IAC): Lane J held that, in an appeal under section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, where the appellant has been removed pursuant to a section 94B certificate, section 25 of the 2007 Act empowers the Upper Tribunal to require the SSHD to return the appellant to the UK.

R (SV) v SSHD (ECAT: Lawfulness of policy guidance) [2022] UKUT 39 (IAC): Lane J held that (1) although the European Convention Against Trafficking (ECAT) is not a part of domestic law, it is given “normative effect” by the Home Office in policy guidance instructing caseworkers how to make decisions giving effect to ECAT, (2) the lawfulness of the discretionary leave policy guidance falls to be determined by reference to the test in R (A) and BF (Eritrea), and (3) notwithstanding the language of the discretionary leave policy, leave for more than 30 months merely requires the applicant to show ‘good reason’.

R (Cardona) v SSHD [2021] EWHC 2656 (Admin): Linden J held that the section of the Defendant’s Work Policy for asylum seekers (v.8) titled “Application in respect of children” fails to comply with s.55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 and was declared unlawful.

R (AA) v SSHD [2021] EWHC 1869 (Admin): Wall J ordered the SSHD to bring back a potential victim of trafficking from France who was removed following the application of a secret policy by the SSHD at the screening stage.

R (NB) v SSHD (Liberty and JCWI intervening) [2021] EWHC 1489 (Admin): Linden J held that the living conditions for asylum seekers accommodated at Napier Military barracks were ‘inadequate’ and restrictions on liberty breached Art 5 ECHR and the common law. Ali intervened on behalf of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.

R (Mahabir) v SSHD [2021] EWHC 1177 (Admin): The Claimant was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain under the Windrush scheme, but her family was required to pay unaffordable application fees to join her (£22,000). That breached the Claimant’s Art 8 ECHR rights, and discriminated against her family under Art 14 ECHR.

R (SM) v Lord Chancellor (BID intervening) [2021] EWHC 418 (Admin): Swift J held that the failure to afford immigration detainees held in prison access to publicly funded legal advice, to an extent equivalent to that available under the Detained Duty Advice Scheme to immigration detainees held in immigration removal centres, amounted to discrimination within ECHR article 14 read with articles 2, 3, 5, and 8 ECHR.

R (C6) v SSHD (Asylum seekers’ permission to work) [2021] UKUT 0094 (IAC): UTJ Smith held that the Secretary of State’s policy ‘Permission to work and volunteering for asylum seekers, version 8.0, 29 May 2019’, admits no exceptions, has not been justified, and is unlawful.

FB (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2020] EWCA Civ [2020] EWCA Civ 1338: The court (the LCJ, Hickingbottam LJ, Coulson LJ) held the SSHD’s removal policy breached the constitutional right of access to justice and was declared unlawful.

R (MW) v SSHD (Fast track appeal: Devaseelan guidelines) [2019] UKUT 00411: Lane J held the “starting point” principle in second asylum appeals is not a legal straitjacket. Judicial fact-finders may depart from the earlier judicial decisions on a principled and properly-reasoned basis.

R (N) v SSHD (JR/ 7389/2018): By consent, the SSHD amended her policy “Withdrawing Asylum Claims Version 5.0” introducing a range of procedural safeguards to protect disabled or incapacitous persons from inadvertent withdrawal of their asylum claims, and created a procedure for re-opening claims incorrectly treated as withdrawn.

R (FB) v SSHD (Public Law Project intervening) [2018] UKUT 428 (IAC): In the course of this claim, the SSHD amended her removal policy to allow individuals to request access to advice, documents, and the courts. Lane J held the amended policy was legally deficient in two further significant respects.

R (Bah) v SSHD [2018] EWHC 2942 (Admin): The court found that when the claimant’s mental health deteriorated, 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.” Substantive damages were awarded for the last 35 days of detention.

R (HN and SA) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 123: Ali secured 15 individual injunctions from McCloskey J, and a historic generic injunction from the Court of Appeal preventing removal to Afghanistan by charter flight, which led to the suspension of charter flights to Afghanistan.

R (Zahid) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 4290: 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.

Overview

N3 and ZA v SSHD (JCWI intervening) [2025] UKSC 6: The Supreme Court held that if an order depriving a person of their British citizenship is withdrawn (e.g., because it would render the person stateless) it is to be treated as having no effect for the purpose of determining an individual’s citizenship status in the period from the date of the making of the order until it is withdrawn. Ali intervened in this case on behalf of JCWI.

B4 v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 900: Singh LJ (with whom Jackson LJ and Holroyde LJ agreed) held that national security advice given to the Secretary of State in deprivation of nationality cases must be fair and balanced, and whether there has been procedural fairness is an objective question for the court to determine itself, not a Wednesbury review.

C6 v SSHD SC/170/2020: An “unprecedented” decision of SIAC in which Jay J struck out the SSHD’s Reply to C6’s appeal under Rule 40 of the SIAC Procedure Rules.

Overview

Mohamed & Ors, R v (Rev1) [2023] EWCA Crim 211: The Lord Chief Justice provided guidance on the correct approach to offences under sections 24(D1) or 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (“the 1971 Act”) which criminalises refugees who arrive in the UK on small boats.

Hussain v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 145 (MOR, Dingemans LJ, King LJ): The paper determination by the Upper Tribunal of an appeal from the First-tier did not satisfy the requirements of common law fairness.

KK and RS (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 119: Permission decision reported for (1) meaning of ‘motivation’ when assessing sur place political activity, and (2) approach to applications for permission to appeal under CPR 52.5(1) and (2).

KK and RS (Sur place activities: Risk) Sri Lanka [2021] UKUT 0130 (IAC): The Upper Tribunal (IAC) clarified and supplemented the guidance given in GJ and Others (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT 00319 UTIAC and allowed both appeals.

DH (Particular Social Group: Mental Health) Afghanistan [2020] UKUT 00223: Authority for the principle that under the Refugee Convention 1951 a ‘Particular Social Group’ may include a person who has or is perceived to have a disability or mental illness even where no firm diagnosis is possible.

MSU (S.104(4b) notices) Bangladesh [2019] UKUT 00412: Authority on the Upper Tribunal (IAC)’s power under S25 of the TCEA 2007 to extend time for continuing with a refugee status appeal otherwise deemed abandoned by statute and the procedure rules.

KV (Sri Lanka) v SSHD (Helen Bamber Foundation, Freedom from Torture, and Medical Justice intervening) [2019] UKSC 10: Landmark ruling reasserting the role of the Istanbul protocol for the investigation of torture and medical expertise in asylum claims. Ali represented all three intervenors.

AS (Afghanistan) v SSHD (UNHCR intervening) [2019] EWCA Civ 873: A guideline case on the correct approach to ‘internal relocation’ under Art 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention 1951. Ali represented the UNHCR whose core submission was accepted by the court.

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.

Sanneh 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.

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 the Judge’s assessment of credibility.

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: Palestinian males suspected of terrorist involvement by the Israeli state will be at real risk of persecution and/or Article 3.

FK (FGM – Risk and Relocation) Kenya CG [2007] UKAIT 00041: 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’. The Court of Appeal 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: Civilians suspected of perceived collaboration with Multi National Forces are at real risk of persecution in Iraq.

LM (Educated women – Chaldo-Assyrians – Risk) Iraq CG [2006] UKAIT 00060: Christian, English-speaking Iraqi women are at real risk of persecution because of the armed conflict in Iraq.

Overview

Osagiede v United Kingdom (App no. 228/20): Pending decision of the ECtHR concerning the correct approach to Article 8 ECHR in expulsion cases.

Ottie v United Kingdom (App no. 18339/19): The ECtHR found that the Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise carried out by the UK courts had taken place solely within the framework of the domestic Immigration Rules and not with reference to the Court’s case law but ultimately found that no violation of Article 8 had taken place. Ali intervened in this case on behalf of JCWI.

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. On communicating the case it asked whether concealment of sexual orientation to avoid ill-treatment is compatible with convention rights. Before trial, the UK conceded and granted SAC refugee status.