Tasaddat is a fantastic barrister who is well respected by his peers, instructing solicitors, and the judiciary. He has an exceptional intellect and is a master of a complex legal terrain.
Tasaddat Hussain is an established, busy and well respected practitioner who is highly sought after with an excellent success rate and 20 years’ extensive experience in Public law, judicial review, human rights and immigration.
Chambers and Partners ranks Tasaddat in Band 1 for Immigration and affirm that he offers 'strong experience in immigration and asylum matters, including those relating to Country Guidance and at-risk ethnic groups. He is an exceptional barrister who never fails to impress. He is a formidable opponent with a keen grasp of complex issues and expert advocacy skills. His knowledge and intelligence is second to none.'
Tasaddat's Public Law practice is recognised by The Legal 500 and he is ranked as a Tier 2 Leading Junior, commending him as 'a fantastic barrister who is well respected by his peers, instructing solicitors, and the judiciary. He has an exceptional intellect and is a master of a complex legal terrain'.
Tasaddat has become renowned for his expertise and breadth of understanding and will always approach each case with commitment and enthusiasm. He is prepared to consider conducting pro-bono work on a case by case basis. He regularly conducts applications for non profit organisations such as Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) and Manuel Bravo, as well as other charitable organisations.
Tasaddat is also available to represent clients in the Court of Protection.
In addition to accepting public access instructions, Tasaddat is authorised to conduct litigation.
Tasaddat is ranked as a Tier 2 Leading Junior by The Legal 500 and Band 3 by Chambers and Partners.
Tasaddat’s public law experience includes:
Tasaddat is ranked as a Tier 1 Leading Junior by The Legal 500 and Band 1 by Chambers and Partners.
Tasaddat presents asylum, human rights and deportation appeals at all levels before the IAC. He has undertaken a number of country guidance cases. He accepts instructions to draft grounds seeking permission to appeal in complex matters on behalf of solicitors who require his particular expertise. He is renowned for his work relating to Article 8 ECHR and is often retained by clients seeking a practitioner with a deep understanding of this rapidly evolving sphere of Human Rights law. He regularly appears before the Court of Appeal on both asylum and human rights matters and has successfully conducted cases both as a junior and in his own right.
Tasaddat undertakes commercial immigration work, representing and advising business clients in all aspects of commercial immigration and the points based system.
The increase in foreign sportspeople in the United Kingdom, coupled with global sporting events, has led to an increasing demand for immigration law in this particular sector. Tasaddat has a breadth of knowledge and understanding which is unrivalled, providing a bespoke and results-focussed service for international sporting clients.
Tasaddat conducts appeals before the SRA Adjudicator Panel and the High Court against alleged transgressions under the Code of Conduct and applications for re-instatement to the Roll as a solicitor. Tasaddat has successfully undertaken appeals on behalf of individuals seeking reinstatement after being “struck off”.
Tasaddat is regularly retained to advise on family matters with an immigration aspect. For example, issues involving domicile, the relevance of ongoing contact proceedings in deportation appeals and the rights of other family members, typically children and/or an estranged parent and the impact upon their rights from immigration decisions.
Tasaddat can cover applications under section 21A Mental Capacity Act 2005 in cases where the Official Solicitor, litigation friends, and accredited legal representatives act for the client.
Tasaddat can advise on issues around capacity, eligibility, and best interests, and prepare position statements, orders and participate in advocates’ meetings to assist in identifying and narrowing issues.
Tasaddat is available to act for family members, seeking to ensure they are able to have a voice in the decision-making process. Tasaddat will also act in applications to displace nearest relatives.
Albanian blood feud case with a protracted litigation history. This matter was refused for the third time as a fresh claim. Tasaddat was instructed to challenge the refusal by way of judicial review. The UTIAC refused the claim, and this was successfully challenged in the Court of Appeal.
The UTIAC materially erred in its approach to the evidence as a whole and misapplied the modest fresh claims test by excluding the probative evidence (allowed determinations on similar facts) and dismissing the other evidence on the basis that it was inadequately detailed when, the real question was; did it present a realistic prospect of success before the FTIAC?
The UTIAC also acted unfairly by assuming the role of the SSHD and putting forward arguments that sought to undermine the veracity and probative value of two determinations advanced as “working examples” of the very same arguments that were shown to have succeeded before the FTT – being the central point of the fresh claim challenge. This was compounded by the failure of the SSHD to make any submissions on this point.
Point of Law
A wider point of law arose; namely to what extent do previous examples of allowed appeals in the FTIAC based on a similar factual matrix assist in the assessment of meeting the modest fresh claims test? Does the Applicant/SSH have a duty of candour to disclose negative determinations? If there are positive and/or negative determinations; what is the percentage required before it can be said the fresh claims test is either met or not?
The Applicant and his brother were accepted nationals of Guatemala. He resisted return on the grounds that he would face persecution and/or be exposed to treatment contrary to Article 2 and 3 ECHR on account of his membership of a particular social group from organized criminal gangs (M-18)
It was argued this would be impossible for the reasons above and that the SSHD had failed to apply the law correctly and ignored material facts, making the decision irrational.
Permission on the papers was granted by the UTIAC. The SSHD settled the claim with costs.
Iraqi national facing removal contrary to established CG because it was now asserted that removal was “feasible” under updated Home Office guidance.
It was argued that this was wrong in law and factually inaccurate since the evidential basis for the assertion was flawed, irrational and contrary to the established country evidence.
Following on from R (JCWI) v President of UT (IAC) [2020] EWHC 3103 (Admin) Tasaddat has secured permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal in this which seeks to challenge the lawfulness of the UT decision to determine the existence of an error of law without an oral hearing. The Court of Appeal also sought submissions on the recent decision of the UT in EP (Albania) & Ors. (rule 34 decisions, setting aside) [2021] UKUT 233 (IAC).
Fresh Claim – para 353 HC 395.
Secretary of State acted unlawfully in refusing to treat the Claimant’s representations as amounting to a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. Secretary of State was order to reconsider her decision in accordance with the law.
Judicial Review against LAA’s (formerly LSC) failure to award an immigration contract.
Guideline case before the Master of the Rolls on the principles governing the conduct of the SRA’s Adjudicator Panel when investigating allegations of dishonesty against its members. Appeal allowed and Petitioner reinstated.
Mother and daughter citizens of Burma and of Rohingya ethnicity. Their Nationality was disputed by the Home Office and said to be not at risk on return to Burma.
Complex issues of nationality and fact relating to the ongoing risk from the recent genocide in Burma. Tasaddat successfully argued that there was an ongoing risk on return in Burman for the Rohingya.
Tasaddat argued that UTIAC failed to give adequate reasons explaining why NS would not face very significant obstacles to integration on return to Afghanistan.
Also, an associated risk of persecution and impediment to integration due to NS’s protracted absence from Afghanistan for over 17 years which the UTIAC failed to consider.
During the UTIAC proceedings it was acknowledged that NS was a vulnerable witness who suffers from PTSD and major pressive disorder. Consultant Adult Psychiatrist provided two psychiatric reports, which the UTIAC accepted in full. There was also unchallenged reports from two other experts who seemed to have been ignored in the assessment.
Iranian political activist left Iran illegally and continued their activism in the UK online and in the real world and who faces execution on return to Iran due to their political opinion.
Tasaddat successfully argued that his client was at risk due to the systemic nature of lethal suppression of Kurdish people in Iran by the government.
This is a good example of many hundreds of cases of its type. That contain thousands of pages of evidence and require a multi layered approach to evidence and country background material to show real risk.
Tasaddat acted for two separate Appellants in this test case following the High Court judgment of R (JCWI) v President of UT (IAC) [2020] EWHC 3103 (Admin) which had concluded that the Presidential Guidance of overall paper norm in error of law appeals without a hearing was unlawful. The Upper Tribunal provided guidance on the scope of set aside applications under Rule 43 of the UT Procedure Rules and factors that are relevant and irrelevant in consideration of such applications.
“(1) The compelling reasons proviso in article 1C(5) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, as amended, applies in the UK only to refugees under article 1A(1) of the Convention.
(2) Changes in a refugee’s country of origin affecting only part of the country may, in principle, lead to cessation of refugee status, albeit it is difficult to see how in practice protection could be said to be sufficiently fundamental and durable in such circumstances.
(3) The SSHD’s guidance regarding the role of past persecution can not in itself form a lawful basis for finding that removal would lead to a breach of the Refugee Convention, given the limited appeal rights at section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended and SF and others (Guidance – post-2014 Act) Albania [2017] UKUT 120 (IAC) 10 when read in its proper context.”
Risk, women, PSG, internal relocation, error of law, UNHCR guidelines on internal relocation.
The Upper Tribunal rejected the United Kingdom Government’s policy that underpinned their arguments, and found that there has been no significant and durable change in the human rights situation in Eritrea. The Eritrean Government continues to subject its citizens to indefinite military/national service, during which conscripts were exposed to severely abusive treatment and torture.
The Eritrean Government continues to view citizens who leave Eritrea to escape such abusive condition as having left the country illegally and “deserted” or “evaded” national service and routinely subject returnees to persecution and ill-treatment.
Significantly, the Upper Tribunal broke new ground to establish that the requirement to undertake military service is unlawful as it amounts to forced labour contrary to Article 4(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Moreover, the Upper Tribunal closed off once and for all, the flawed argument advanced by the Home Office that Eritrean citizens (who had left the country unlawfully) are able to avoid persecution by paying a “diaspora tax” to the Eritrean government and signing a letter of regret for acts of treachery against the state: “334… we do not accept that the evidence goes anywhere close to establishing that the payment of the tax and the signing of the letter would enable draft evaders and deserters to reconcile with the Eritrean authorities.”
This decision secures important recognition and protection for Eritreans who routinely face severe ill treatment, persecution and even death upon return.
It was reported in The Guardian.
(i) In some cases the overriding objective will dictate that the respondent’s skeleton argument is served in advance of that of the appellant.
(ii) The test for disclosure is whether receipt of the material in question is necessary for the just and fair disposal of the appeal.
(iii) Where uncorroborated and/or anonymous evidence is received, the Tribunal’s task is to scrutinise it with caution and to attribute such weight as is considered appropriate.
(iv) Documents obtained by a party pursuant to disclosure or production orders or directions are produced under coercion and, in consequence, are received subject to certain restrictions. In particular, they must not be deployed by the receiving party for any collateral or ulterior purpose not reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of the proceedings.
(v) The so-called implied undertaking, reflected in [iv] above, applies in Tribunal proceedings. However, it may be subject to modification to reflect (a) that the primacy of protecting a party’s private documents and invading a party’s privacy does not apply with full force in such proceedings, particularly where the custodian is the Secretary of State, (b) the duty of candour owed to the Tribunal and (c) the inquisitorial dimension of Tribunal proceedings.
(vi) In matters of disclosure and the provision and exchange of evidence, all parties are subordinated to the authority of the Tribunal, which is the ultimate arbiter of all procedural and substantive issues.
Returns to Iraq, Article 15c, weight to be attached to UNHCR, internal flight.
The Upper Tribunal identified the applicable principles to assist in the determination of appeals where children are affected by an immigration decision.
The provisions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 concerning, respectively, self-employed persons and workers ultimately derive from different previous Directives and cannot be elided so as, for example, to create a concept of “self-employment seeking”.
Accordingly, a person cannot combine a period of self-employment with a period of seeking employment, so as to achieve a requisite period of residence under the Regulations.
Country guidance on returns to Iraq, risk categories, internal flight and internal armed conflict, Article 15(c).
Women and Children, Internal flight, risk on return.
Court of Appeal held UT erred in law by: “reject[ing] the PTSD diagnosis out of hand and for these shaky negative reasons [failed] ….. to accord the ….anxious scrutiny which the case required.”
Whether it was lawful for the Tribunal to place determinative weight upon particular conduct identified under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004 as damaging the credibility of a Claimant to such an extent that it outweighed (a) accepted supporting medical evidence confirming scarring inflicted from torture in a manner and at a time consistent with the core of the claim, (b) supporting objective evidence of the treatment meted out to the claimant and (c) corroborating oral evidence from witnesses.
The Court of Appeal interpreted section 8 the Asylum & Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 to ensure compatibility with the overriding duty to apply close and anxious scrutiny to an asylum and human rights claim. Despite there being no apparent ambiguity in the clear wording of the provision, the court went on to insert an additional word so that the provision would not offend the doctrine of separation of powers and implicitly, the right to a fair hearing.
“When construing s 8(1) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004, which provided various factors that the court should take account of in assessing the credibility of an asylum seeker, the qualifying word ‘potentially’ should be read into an explanatory clause which would then read: ‘as (potentially) damaging the claimant’s credibility’.” Appeal allowed and remitted to AIT. Upon remittal, Home Office conceded appeal and granted refugee status.
Guidelines for the admissibility of finger print evidence from the EU finger print data base. The principles governing the use of such evidence, the burden and standard of proof to be applied when evidence was produced by the system of past claims in order to expose deception in the current asylum application.
Women in Bangladesh; particular social group under the Refugee Convention.
Removal to Iraq in order to apply for entry clearance as a spouse from Jordan held to be an unlawful interference with right to family life under Article 8 ECHR.
Political prisoners and prison conditions; breach of Article 3 ECHR.
Tasaddat’s Privacy Notice may be viewed by clicking here.
Our mailing list is dedicated to professionals with an interest in our work.
