Jonathan represents appellants at all levels of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Tribunal, and has significant experience in matters of judicial review.

Overview

Jonathan represents appellants at all levels of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Tribunal, and has significant experience in matters of judicial review.  In particular, he has experience of working with vulnerable clients such as those who have been rendered stateless or victims of trafficking, and he also has significant experience in business immigration matters due to his eye for technical detail.  Jonathan's practice also includes housing and Court of Protection.

Jonathan studied Physics at the University of Manchester before completing a Graduate Diploma in Law. He was awarded the Diplock Scholarship by Middle Temple along with the Student of the Year Award for 2009 following his success in a national mooting competition.  Outside of his legal experience, Jonathan has a background in music and theatre, and is a regular volunteer in community-based theatrical projects.

Public law (judicial review)

Jonathan has a busy public law practice that has stemmed principally from two areas: first, his busy immigration and asylum practice; and second, his earlier numerous public law challenges to decisions made in criminal cases. He advises on a broad range of public law matters and has a keen eye for technical argument.

Immigration

Jonathan represents appellants at all levels of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Tribunal, and has significant experience in matters of judicial review.

His experience in the Tribunal includes working with vulnerable clients, such as those who have been rendered stateless and victims of trafficking, especially where these involve the complexity of concurrent police proceedings. He regularly appears for appellants faced with allegations of being involved in sham marriages and has advised on damages that flow from successful appeals in such matters.

Jonathan frequently brings challenges by way of judicial review in areas which include challenges to fresh claim and certification decisions, often made when a prospective claimant is detained and pending removal.

Jonathan also has significant experience in business immigration matters where his eye for technical detail assists appellants who often find themselves completely at the mercy of the state as they try to navigate the labyrinthine appendices to the Immigration Rules.

Court of Protection

Jonathan has an interest in developing a practice representing parties to proceedings in the Court of Protection.  Jonathan’s pupillage involved work in the Court of Protection, particularly with regard to issues surrounding deprivation of liberty.

Notable cases

  • R (on the application of HH) v SSHD (ongoing): Judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to remove a Claimant to Hungary through the provisions of Dublin III, despite the European Commission’s findings in relation to the current situation faced there by asylum seekers. Interim relief has been granted preventing removal;
  • R (on the application of BH) v SSHD (ongoing): Judicial review wherein the Secretary of State has certified an Article 8 claim as clearly unfounded on the basis of a sham marriage, thereby arguably unlawfully incorporating a credibility assessment into a certification decision. Interim relief has been granted;
  • R (on the application of MR) v SSHD (2015): This Judicial review involved a challenge to a decision wherein the Secretary of State had applied a blanket policy to reject all evidence from a certain Pakistan bank without making this known to Applicants before applications were rejected;
  • R (on the application of MT) v SSHD (2015): Judicial review against a refusal to treat further submissions as a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. The further submissions involved the sudden deterioration of the mental health of the Applicant’s partner as he faced removal;
  • R (on the application of BJ, MK) v SSHD (2015): Judicial review on behalf of two young businessmen threatened with removal due to a transient drop in funds due to being victims of fraud; and
  • TC v SSHD (2015): An appeal before the Tribunal wherein the Respondent has attempted to deprive the Appellant of his British Citizenship on the basis of it being obtained due to forgery.

 

Related news

 

Sign up to our mailing list

Our mailing list is dedicated to professionals with an interest in our work.

Sign up