Ronan’s practice covers all areas of asylum and immigration. He has a detailed knowledge and understanding of the complex and changing interrelationship of international and European law, domestic legislation, immigration rules and policies and judicial decisions that make immigration and asylum a complicated area of law.
Immigration: asylum and human rights
Overview
Ronan has worked in the area of immigration, asylum and human rights since 1989, and so has a detailed knowledge and understanding of the law. He is able to identify practical and creative solutions to his clients’ immigration problems. He gives clear and comprehensive advice and assistance at all stages, from making an application and gathering evidence, to bringing appeals, further appeals and judicial review applications.
Ronan is committed to working as a team with his instructing solicitors in the belief that the creative exchange of ideas enhances the likelihood of success. He represents clients in the tribunals and courts, including the Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. He has been instructed by a range of organisations to make interventions in those courts including Amnesty International, Statewatch, Anti-Slavery International and the AIRE Centre.
Ronan is frequently instructed as leading counsel. He provides expert opinions to the family court about the immigration consequences of possible family arrangements and orders. Although he appears in high-profile cases, he is equally happy to be instructed to represent in the First-tier Tribunal. Ronan edits Macdonald’s Immigration Law and Practice, the leading practitioners’ text.
Notable Cases
OA (Somalia) CG [2022] UKUT 33 (IAC)
The most recent country guidance case about Somalia. Also appeared in earlier country guidance cases AM and AM (armed conflict: risk categories) Somalia CG [2008] UKAIT 00091; AMM (conflict; humanitarian crisis; returnees; FGM) Somalia CG [2011] UKUT 445 (IAC); MOJ (Return to Mogadishu) CG [2014] UKUT 442 (IAC)
Ainte (material deprivation, art 3, AM (Zimbabwe)) [2021] UKUT 203 (IAC)
Concerning the approach to an article 3 claim based on removal to material deprivation
MS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 9
Whether the tribunal was bound to follow a Conclusive Grounds decision by the Competent Authority and whether removal could breach positive obligations under ECHR article 4 (Ronan represented the appellant in the Court of Appeal and in the application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court).
KV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKSC 10
Whether the tribunal had adopted the correct approach to medical evidence when it decided that scars resulted from wounds that had been ‘self-inflicted by proxy’ rather than by torture.
Robinson v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKSC 11
Whether a decision not to treat submissions as a fresh claim was appealable to the tribunal.
MAB (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1253
Whether a medical doctor had lawfully been excluded from Refugee Convention protection for having treated detainees who had been tortured and might be tortured again.
Bajratari (Citizenship of the Union – Right of residence of a third country national who is a direct relative) [2019] EUECJ C-93/18
Whether a child could establish an EU right of residence as a self-sufficient person on the basis of income earnt by a parent who was working unlawfully.
Herrera v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 412
Whether removing a long resident overstayer would breach article 8 of the ECHR.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v FY (Somalia) [2017] EWCA Civ 1853
Whether removal to Somalia would breach article 3 of the ECHR.
RQ (Jordan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 559
Whether refusing an adjournment to enable the applicant to obtain further evidence had been procedurally unfair.
Akhalu (health claim; ECHR article 8) Nigeria [2013] UKUT 400 (IAC)
Whether removing a woman would breach article 8 ECHR because of the effect removal would have on her health.
Ahmad (removal of children over 18) Pakistan [2012] UKUT 267
Whether there was a power to remove children who had leave to remain as a consequence of deception practised by their parents.
HH (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 426
Whether an individual could win an appeal on asylum or human rights grounds on the basis that he or she would be at risk of harm en route to a safe home area.
R (AM (Somalia)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 114
Whether certification of a human rights claim, after an appeal had commenced, could bring the appeal to an end.
BA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKSC 7
In what circumstances the making of a human rights claim entitled an individual to appeal against an immigration decision whilst still in the UK.
R (Ozcan) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2002] EWCA Civ 1183
Whether removal of an asylum seeker to Turkey exposed him to risk of persecution.
Contact Ronan
Trafficking and modern day slavery
Overview
Ronan’s practice consists of cases concerned with trafficking in human beings, including protection and human rights appeals involving issues of trafficking, and the state’s obligations to victims of trafficking; claims for judicial review of the Home Office’s conduct and policy in relation to trafficking victims; challenging NRM decisions; civil claims for violations of victims’ Article 4 ECHR rights and exploration of remedies in respect of systemic failures by the UK to protect victims of trafficking.
Notable Cases
MS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 9
Whether the tribunal was bound to follow a decision of the Competent Authority as to whether a person had been trafficked and whether removal could breach positive obligations under ECHR article 4 (Ronan represented the appellant in the Court of Appeal and in the application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court).
MN and IXU v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 1746
Concerning the standard of proof to be applied by the Competent Authority when making a ‘conclusive grounds’ decision and the approach that it should take to expert and medical evidence.
Hounga v Allen [2014] UKSC 47
Whether a victim of trafficking should be prevented from claiming damages against her employer/trafficker on the ground that the employment in respect of which she wanted to recover damages was undertaken whilst she was unlawfully present in the UK.
Contact Ronan
Administrative and Public Law
Overview
A substantial part of Ronan’s practice consists of applications for judicial review in the Upper Tribunal and Administrative Court. Ronan has been actively involved in lobbying on behalf of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association in respect of legislative, rules and policy changes.
Notable Cases
R (Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3
Whether the fee charged for citizenship applications by children was unlawful.
Contact Ronan
IMMIGRATION DETENTION
Overview
R (AB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 1969 (Admin)
Whether detention was unlawful owing to the Secretary of State’s failure to make a lawful decision in response to further submissions under paragraph 353 of the immigration rules.
R (SW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 2684 (Admin)
Whether the detention of a potential victim of trafficking was lawful.
HXA v The Home Office [2010] EWHC 1177 QB
Claim for damages for unlawful detention.
R (Abdillahi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 808 (Admin)
Judicial review of detention pending deportation.
