Muhammad Zahab Jamali

Zahab brings a wealth of experience to the firm with a transnational career spanning over nearly two decades and having hundreds of notable cases to his credit. Owing to his extensive knowledge and experience, Zahab is recognized as one of the finest, most devoted and sought-after lawyers. Zahab prides in regularly obtaining urgent out of hours injunctive relief for despairing clients from the High Court and is also proficient in handling cost matters before the same. Moreover, he also regularly advises other law firms on complex matters of law and is an active speaker on multimedia forums known for his analysis on developments in immigration law.

Civil Litigation

He acts for a range of diverse clients, private and corporate, from various jurisdictions and ethnicities including Asian, European, African and South American. His portfolio includes many high-profile clients whom he has successfully represented.

Public Law

He is actively involved in litigation and was most recently engaged in a multi-million pound case involving dispute between housing associations. Zahab also has a deep understanding of Constitutional and Administrative law.

Corporate Law

Zahab routinely undertakes corporate and advisory work for his local and international corporate clients in respect of regulatory and compliance matters. He is currently involved in overseas contentious litigation for dual national clients and routine handling of property as well as commercial cases which reflects the diversity of his practice and client confidence. Moreover, he has special expertise in obtaining business visas and sponsor licence for individuals and companies.

Immigration

He is an expert in all matters pertaining to immigration law but is specifically regarded as a champion at judicial review claims. Zahab has successfully contested claims involving unlawful detention and removal/deportation proceedings as well as challenged Home Office policies on human rights grounds, Tier 1 Entrepreneurs and other generic refusals on the point-based system. He has also extensively challenged the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in respect of Covid-19 related cases, in particular on the issue of managed quarantine.

1. HR & MW v SSHD (CA-2022-001207 & CA-2022-001208) – The Appellants challenged the decisions of a High Court Judge, on costs. Following grant of permission by a Court of Appeal Judge, Mr. Jamali actively negotiated a settlement in these linked appeals, whereby the SSHD has conceded the claim just before the substantive hearing and offered to pay majority of costs of the Court of Appeal proceedings. Mr Jamali got these clients out of detention, got the decision to cancel leave quashed, got damages awarded to the clients in excess of £31,000, then got them further leaves to remain granted and now has succeeded in Court of Appeal as well.

2. AK v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1654 – The Court of Appeal gave guidance on 322 (5) decision in line with Minded to Refuse Letters and their effect. The matter is currently pending in the Supreme Court.

3. HM v SSHD (CA-2022-001090) – The SSHD conceded the claim with costs before Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Vos, just one day before the substantive hearing. The Appellant had alleged that the GLD caseworker and a senior panel B counsel had arguably misled the High Court by not updating the Court that following grant of permission by Honourable Mr Justice Morris, the Defendant changed the law under challenge. The SSHD was ordered to pay costs of the Court of Appeal as well as the proceedings before the High Court spanning from 2020 till 2023.

4. ED v SSHD (CA-2022-001818) – Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal whereby SSHD’s conduct has been challenged, because she first confirmed to a High Court Judge during out of hours injunctive relief application that she will stop the removal but then informed that the Claimant had been removed. The matter is awaiting a substantive hearing before Lord Justices.

5. FR v SSHD (CA-2022-000271) – The Appellant had his appeal refused in the First Tier Tribunal, followed by two refusals of permissions by the FTT and UT respectively. Then his Cart JR was refused by a High Court Judge and then his new application was refused by the Home Office and permission to judicial review was refused on papers by one Judge and at oral hearing by another Judge. The permission was finally granted by a Court of Appeal Judge criticising all the decisions below. The SSHD subsequently was ordered to pay complete costs in the Court of Appeal and the Upper Tribunal.

6. SH v SSHD (CA-2022-000270) – The Appellant challenged decision of the Upper Tribunal Judge refusing his substantive judicial review claim. Following grant of permission by a Court of Appeal Judge, the SSHD conceded the claim but disputed costs. Following costs submissions, Master of the Court of Appeal awarded costs to the Appellant.

7. AW v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 346 – Court of Appeal sets aside decision of Upper Tribunal Judge. The Court considered whether procedural fairness requires applicant to be provided an opportunity to respond to allegation of dishonesty in an entry clearance application. Carr LJ commented at [32] that: ‘this is an important point which does not appear to have been considered directly in any of the authorities to date’. Permission was granted and the matter was remitted back to the Upper Tribunal to provide detailed guidance on this novel argument. The Respondent soon conceded the claim with costs and granted the visa.

8. MP v SSHD (C6/2018/0948) – SSHD conceded the appeal in Court of Appeal in relation to paragraph 322(5) but disputed costs. Following detailed submissions, Court of Appeal awarded costs to the applicant.

9. JP v SSHD (C8/2016/2301) – SSHD conceded the appeal in Court of Appeal with costs against refusing the applicants’ application on the basis of TOEIC test.

10. SA 2 v SSHD (C2/2016/4326) – SSHD conceded the matter refusing the application for leave to remain. The matter was challenged by judicial review JR/6161/2016 which was refused. It was subsequently challenged in Court of Appeal and Lord Justice Wilkie granted permission in this matter. The matter was concluded and SSHD paid costs for the proceedings.

11. UA 2 v SSHD (C4/2015/0197) – The Applicant was refused entry at the airport and issued notice of refusal to enter. The decision was challenged by way of judicial review CO/3959/2014. JR was refused on papers but renewed and permission was refused by Honour Judge Sycamore at the hearing. The matter was subsequently challenged in Court of appeal. SSHD conceded and agreed to pay the costs of the complete proceedings.

1. LC v SSHD (CO/604/2023) – The UKBF detained this Claimant at Heathrow Airport and issued her removal directions for same day at 2100 hours. Mr Jamali was instructed just after 1800 hours and was able to promptly cancel the removal directions and get her released on bail. Following negotiations with UK Border Force, they granted entry clearance to his model, so that she could complete her pending photoshoots and then the UK Border Force also conceded the judicial review with costs. The Claimant has now recently issued a claim for damages for unlawful detention.

2. LL v SSHD (CO/4639/2022) – The UKBF detained this Claimant at Heathrow airport and issued her removal directions for next day. Following a prompt judicial review, the removal directions were cancelled, and the Claimant was granted bail. Subsequently, the UK Border Force withdrew the decision under challenge and conceded the claim with costs. The Claimant has since been granted entry clearance and now is in process of issuing a claim for damages.

3. MA v SSHD (CO/4037/2022) – The SSHD had been withholding the Claimant’s original passport and documents for over 6 months despite granting him leave as a Graduate. This delay was challenged by way of judicial review. The SSHD returned the original passport and documents and conceded the claim with costs.

4. SH v SSHD (CO/4637/2022) – The SSHD had been withholding the Claimant’s passports for nearly 2.5 years following grant of leave to remain. This delay was challenged in the High Court and within days the passports were returned and the SSHD conceded the claim with costs.

5. LA v SSHD [2022] EWHC 2730 – High Court Judge gave guidance on when interviewing process becomes flawed and failure by the UK Border Force to probe and investigate the Claimant.

6. HR v SSHD (CO/4429/2022) – The SSHD had granted the Claimant’s application for Graduate visa but had been withholding his original passport for 18 months. Once proceedings were issued, the SSHD promptly returned the passport and conceded the claim. The Claimant now has damages claim pending.

7. MR v SSHSC (CO/1843/2021) – The Health Secretary released the Claimant was Managed Quarantine Facility following grant of interim relief by a Honourable Mr Justice Lane. The SSHSC subsequently also agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

8. AA v SSHSC (CO/2963/2021) – A High Court Judge granted expedition following delay from the Health Secretary in granting exemption to the Claimant from Managed Quarantine Facility. The Health Secretary disputed costs and Honourable Mr Justice Mostyn criticised the Health Secretary’s conduct Ordered her to pay costs of the proceedings.

9. SS v SSHD (CO/3445/2021) – The Claimant challenged the SSHD’s delay in deciding his naturalisation application. Although the SSHD granted the nationality, she disputed costs. A High Court Judge ordered the SSHD to pay the Claimant’s legal costs.

10. AU v SSHD (CO/2063/2021) – SSHD refused to grant fee exemption to this minor Claimant for his nationality application. This was challenged in the High Court. The SSHD subsequently conceded the claim and was ordered to pay costs by a High Court Judge. The minor Claimant has since been granted fee exemption and subsequently his British nationality.

11. GN v SSHD (CO/30/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim in High Court after refusing permission to entry the Claimant at the airport and detaining her. The SSHD also paid all the legal costs of these proceedings and the claim was transferred for unlawful detention to County Court.

12. OE v SSHD (CO/1952/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim in High Court with costs. The claimant had challenged the redactions in the subject access report. SSHD provided the relevant disclosure.

13. MZ 3 v SSHD (CO/1169/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim in High Court with costs. The claimant had challenged the redactions in the subject access report. SSHD provided the relevant disclosure.

14. RA v SSHD (CO/4319/2019) – SSHD attempt to remove the claimant from the United Kingdom was stopped following grant of injunction by Honourable Mrs Justice Steyn DBE. The SSHD subsequently agreed to reconsider the decision but disputed costs. Following written submissions, costs were awarded to the claimant.

15. MA 1 v SSHD (CO/4098/2019) – SSHD’s attempt to remove the claimant from the United Kingdom was stopped following grant of injunction by Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE. SSHD disputed the costs and the issue of costs was challenged in the Court of Appeal but subsequently in a connected claim for unlawful detention, SSHD conceded the costs of these proceedings as well.

16. GZ v SSHD (CO/2565/2017) – SSHD was unable to remove the claimant from the United Kingdom following a successful challenge to removal and unlawful detention which was subsequently conceded by the SSHD with costs and damages.

17. SB and another v SSHD – SSHD stopped the Claimants at the airport and retained the passports. Upon filing the judicial review, SSHD conceded, granted leave to enter and returned the passports to the Claimants.

18. RN 2 v SSHD (CO/4730/2017) – The Applicant was detained at IRC and issued removal directions. Matter was challenged by way of judicial review and SSHD conceded the claim with costs. The Applicant was released on bail when the permission was allowed on all grounds.

19. RR v SSHD (CO/6185/2016) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry and remove the claimant from the United Kingdom.

20. NM v SSHD (CO/5985/2014) – The client was detained upon landing at airport in the United Kingdom following complaint by his wife. Mr Jamali stopped his removal, then got him released on bail, then successfully challenged the Home Office’s decision to cancel his leave. Mr Jamali was also successful in getting the client a declaration of unlawful detention from the High Court and then the Home Office was ordered to pay the client’s legal costs plus £24,000 as damages.

21. RN v SSHD (CO/6380/2012) – SSHD conceded and withdrew the Applicant’s decision for leave to remain as Tier 1 (PSW) application. The Claimant was also released from detention and subsequently granted further leave to remain.

1. KD & another v SSHD (JR-2023-LON-000522) – The SSHD had refused the visit visa application of two Applicants from India. The SSHD made a basic blunder in this case. The caseworker just looked at the first page of bank statement and concluded that there were no transactions, where complete bank statements for 6 months had been provided. Once this was raised at judicial review stage, the SSHD offered to reconsider the decision in light of this blunder and was ordered to pay the Applicants legal costs.

2. BA 3 v SSHD (JR-2023-LON-000513) – The SSHD had re-refused this elderly client’s visit visa application (after already losing a previous judicial review). Interestingly, the SSHD failed to disclose the interview transcript and importantly, the Applicant was interviewed in a language that he did not choose and did not understand. Once this was raised in judicial review grounds, the SSHD withdrew the decision under challenge and conceded the claim with costs.

3. HP 2 v SSHD (JR-2023-LON-000514) – The SSHD had previously conceded a judicial review in respect of delay and undertook to make a fresh decision by 15 March 2023. The SSHD again failed to make a decision and despite being served with a pre-action protocol did not make a decision. Once proceedings were issued, the SSHD promptly conceded the claim with costs and agreed to make a decision within 10 days.

4. BA 2 v SSHD (JR-2023-LON-000208) – The SSHD previously conceded the judicial review claim and agreed to make a decision within 3 months. Despite the three months passing, no decision was received. The SSHD failed to settle the issue at pre-action stage. Once proceedings were issued, the SSHD informed that she had sent the decision to previous legal representatives. The SSHD conceded the claim with costs.

5. MN v SSHD (JR-2023-LON-000322) – The Applicant challenged the SSHD’s delay in implementing the appeal, thereby delaying in giving right to work to the Applicant. Once proceedings were issued, the SSHD promptly granted leave to remain to the Applicant and conceded the claim. The SSHD was also ordered to pay costs of the Applicant for bringing these proceedings.

6. AM v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-002014) – The SSHD had issued BRP card to this Applicant without right to work. This was raised by the SSHD but she failed to rectify the same. A subsequent pre-action protocol was ignored, and once proceedings were issued, the SSHD issued the correct BRP. The SSHD conceded the claim with costs. The Applicant now also has a damages claim pending against the SSHD.

7. AB v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001324) – SSHD conceded the claim, whereby she had refused application of a 71 years old women suffering from dementia. Following grant of permission by an Upper Tribunal Judge, the SSHD conceded the claim and was ordered by the Tribunal to pay costs of the proceedings.

8. HF v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001914) – The Applicants challenged the SSHD’s delay in deciding their asylum claim for over 2 years. The SSHD conceded the claim with cost and has offered to make a decision within next 2 months.

9. AN v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001556) – The Applicant challenged the SSHD’s delay in deciding his asylum claim. The SSHD promptly granted asylum claim of the Applicant and conceded the claim with costs.

10. NP v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001271) – The Applicant challenger the SSHD’s delay in deciding the EUSS application of the Applicant. The SSHD undertook to make a decision promptly and agreed to pay legal costs of these proceedings.

11. JN v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-000601) – The Applicant challenged the SSHD’s delay in deciding his asylum claim. The SSHD promptly made a decision granting his asylum claim and also conceded the claim and was ordered to pay the legal costs.

12. MA v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-000367) – The Applicant challenged the SSHD’s delay in refusing his application for ILR. The SSHD subsequently withdrew the decision under challenge and conceded the claim with costs.

13. RM v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-000072) – The Applicant challenged the Home Office’s refusal of his domestic violence application and also argued his previous legal representatives’ poor conduct. The SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge. When the Applicant had instructed Mr Jamali, he had already become an overstayer and this success means that he again becomes lawfully resident in the United Kingdom and the Home Office will consider his application afresh.

14. BN v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-000056) – The Applicant challenged the SSHD’s decision to refuse his entry clearance application as a visitor. The SSHD had failed to understand her official tax returns. In the claim, the Applicant highlighted how the SSHD did not have basic understanding of reading and understanding tax returns. The SSHD promptly conceded the claim with costs.

15. BA v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001007) – The SSHD had refused this elderly client’s visit visa application. Following grant of permission by an Upper Tribunal Judge, the SSHD promptly conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge.

16. HM v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001984) – SSHD conceded the claim whereby delay in deciding application of the Applicant suffering from severe mental health issues was challenged. The SSHD was also ordered to pay costs of the proceedings.

17. JH v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001572) – The Applicant challenged delay on part of the SSHD in determining his asylum claim. The SSHD promptly granted his asylum claim and conceded the judicial review with costs.

18. RU v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-000882) – The Applicant challenged SSHD’s delay of 6.5 years in determining his asylum claim. The SSHD relied on the argument that the Applicant had pending criminal prosecution. The Applicant disputed this and Upper Tribunal Judge granted permission. Following grant of permission, the SSHD confirmed that she had made a mistake and there were no pending criminal prosecution. The SSHD immediately granted the asylum claim and offered to pay costs of the proceedings.

19. RS v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001375) – SSHD conceded the claim and withdrew the deportation order and agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

20. MZ 4 v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001875) – SSHD had failed to refund super priority fee after being unable to make a decision in 24 hours. The SSHD disregarded multiple correspondences including pre-action correspondence. Once proceedings were issued the SSHD refunded the fee and conceded the claim with costs.

21. HB v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001146) – SSHD contested this claim whereby she had relied on UAE earnings threshold for opening bank account in UAE. She relied on a random website, whereby the website itself stated that the figures provided were for illustrative purposes and should not be relied upon. Once proceedings were issued and this was brought to the attention of the Tribunal, the SSHD conceded the claim and was ordered to pay costs of the proceedings. The SSHD also withdrew the decision under challenge.

22. PG v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001482) – SSHD contested the claim in respect of delay but promptly granted asylum claim of this PhD graduate. The issue of costs was determined by Upper Tribunal Judge and the SSHD was ordered to pay Applicant’s complete legal costs of the judicial review proceedings.

23. KL 2 v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001498) – SSHD conceded the claim where she had granted the Applicant with BRP for 16 days instead of 16 months. The SSHD was also ordered to pay costs of the proceedings.

24. SJ v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001342) – SSHD’s delay in deciding an in-time application for over 2.5 years was challenged by way of judicial review. The SSHD promptly granted the leave but disputed costs. Following costs submissions, Upper Tribunal Judge ordered the SSHD to pay all the legal costs.

25. RM v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001621) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs, where the Applicant had challenged a delay of over 2.5 years in deciding his in-time application for leave to remain.

26. JG v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-000732) – SSHD conceded the claim in respect of delay in out of country application. The SSHD was also ordered to pay costs of the proceedings.

27. MB v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-001968) –SSHD conceded the claim in respect of delay in implementing an appeal, with costs.

28. NU v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-000176) – SSHD conceded the claim where she had refused entry clearance as a student on past immigration history. The SSHD was also ordered to pay the Applicant’s legal costs.

29. YW v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-000060) – SSHD conceded the claim wherein she had failed to issue BRP card of the Applicant for over 3 months.

30. SM v SSHD (JR-2022-LON-000098) – SSHD conceded the claim and agreed to pay costs, following grant of expedition by an Upper Tribunal Judge.

31. KL v SSHD (JR-2021-LON-001817) – SSHD contested the claim in respect of delay and refusing the application on deception but failing to provide disclosure. Permission was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Sheridan, following which the SSHD conceded the claim with costs and also granted entry clearance to the Applicant.

32. JE v SSHD (JR/1256/2021) – SSHD conceded the claim following grant of permission by an Upper Tribunal Judge terming the delay in deciding the application as arguably unlawful. The SSHD also pay costs of the proceedings and to make a decision promptly.

33. MR v SSHD (JR/165/2021) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs for failing to decide the Applicant’s application within 3 months as agreed.

34. FA v SSHD (JR/1677/2021) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs after her decision to refuse the Applicant was challenged by way of judicial review, wherein she had refused on the basis of conducting a remote interview. We were successfully able to show that the entire interviewing process was flawed.

35. PG v SSHD (JR/1345/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge O’Callaghan and withdrew the decision under challenge, whereby Applicant Tier 4 application had been refused due to a criminal conviction.

36. TM v SSHD (JR/2386/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry clearance as a visitor.

37. GK v SSHD (CO/709/2020) – Claimant had challenged the delay in deciding revocation of his British nationality. SSHD promptly then issued the decision but contested the costs. Fordham J awarded costs to the claimant.

38. GF v SSHD (JR/934/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry clearance as Tier 1 Entrepreneur to the applicant. The applicant was subsequently granted entry clearance as Tier 1 Entrepreneur successfully.

39. AB v SSHD (JR/1436/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry clearance as Tier 1 Entrepreneur, following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Keith.

40. MZ v SSHD (JR/475/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge to refuse the applicant’s ILR application.

41. EU 3 v SSHD (JR/1213/2020) – SSHD failed to following consent order in JR/5471/2019 and failure to comply the Court Order was challenged. SSHD conceded the claim with costs.

42. RN 2 v SSHD (JR/837/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim alleging failure to implement Court Order in JR/5618/2019, with costs.

43. UW v SSHD (JR/1281/2020) – Matter was against SSHD unreasonable delay in deciding the Applicants application.

44. MZ 2 v SSHD (JR/1065/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew a second decision under challenge to refuse the applicant’s ILR application, following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede.

45. QS 3 v SSHD (JR/1713/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to refund the applicant HO fee for previous application(s).

46. MA 2 v SSHD (JR/162/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to withdraw the decision under challenge. SSHD had relied on a medical expert disputing a qualified psychiatrist’s reports, but upon research by Mr Jamali it transpired that SSHD’s medical expert was in fact a GP with specialisation in dermatology.

47. SJ v SSHD (JR/6059/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge to refuse applicant’s further submissions following grant of permission by Honourable Mrs Justice Foster DBE. The case related to Tier 1 Entrepreneur applicant, who had wrongly been advised by the previous legal representative.

48. OE v SSHD (JR/4385/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge to refuse the applicant’s further submissions following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Norton-Taylor. The case related to medical evidence related to minor child of the applicant that had not been considered by the SSHD properly under 276ADE and Section 55 BCIA 2009.

49. JN v SSHD (CO/4700/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry to the claimant and to remove him from the United Kingdom. The SSHD subsequently also paid damages for unlawfully detaining the claimant.

50. AA v SSHD (JR/3331/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the removal window issued to remove the applicant. The applicant was subsequently granted residence card under the EEA Regulations.

51. NG and another v SSHD (JR/2398/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse applicants’ application as Tier 1 Entrepreneur, following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Latter. The applicants were subsequently granted leave as Tier 1 entrepreneur and the SSHD also refunded their Home Office fees.

52. QS v SSHD (JR/3900/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge to refuse the applicant’s ILR application.

53. QS 2 v SSHD (JR/5617/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge to refuse the applicant’s ILR application, following a contested hearing in the Upper Tribunal where permission was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede. The case involved cross checking information from subject access report to show that the SSHD had wrongly detained the applicant some 4 years ago and in fact his case remained outstanding all throughout. SSHD subsequently granted ILR to the applicant.

54. MI v SSHD (JR/1375/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to withdraw the decision rejecting the applicants further evidence in relation to his asylum claim

55. MI 2 v SSHD (JR/4535/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to withdraw the decision rejecting the applicants further evidence in relation to his asylum claim, following grant of permission at a contesting oral hearing by Upper Tribunal Judge Smith

56. EB v SSHD (JR/6291/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim and agreed to withdraw the decision to remove the applicant. SSHD disputed costs but Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman awarded costs to the applicant.

57. MM v SSHD (JR/2530/2019) – SSHD revoked the applicant’s ILR based on deception. SSHD made numerous allegations. Mr Jamali refused to comment on the allegations on behalf of the client and sought disclosure. SSHD never made the disclosure and conceded the claim with costs.

58. MM 2 v SSHD (JR/3901/2019) – SSHD’s supplemental decision to issue bail form prohibiting the applicant from employment was successfully challenged by the applicant. SSHD conceded the bail form with costs. During this time, the applicant also applied and was naturalised as a British national.

59. ED v SSHD (JR/3131/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to issue removal window notice to the applicant and agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

60. EU v SSHD (JR/4379/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to issue removal window notice to the applicant and agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

61. EU 2 v SSHD (JR/5471/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to refuse applicant’s ILR application under Turkey-ECAA, by drawing negative inferences but not allowing the opportunity to the applicant to respond. SSHD also agreed to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings.

62. EO v SSHD (JR/4172/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to issue removal window notice to the applicant and agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

63. EO 2 v SSHD (JR/5482/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to refuse applicant’s ILR application under Turkey-ECAA, by drawing negative inferences but not allowing the opportunity to the applicant to respond, following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb. SSHD also agreed to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings.

64. MK v SSHD (JR/3769/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to issue removal window notice to the applicant but disputed costs. Upper Tribunal Judge Sheridan awarded costs to the applicant.

65. AM v SSHD (JR/456/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to refuse permanent residence application of the applicant, with costs. The applicant was subsequently granted permanent residence.

66. RN v SSHD (JR/5618/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to refuse to refund application fee of the applicants’ previous application from 2011. SSHD also agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

67. LS v SSHD (JR/5064/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim for failing to return the sponsor’s BRP card, with costs.

68. NK v SSHD (JR/1570/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim to refuse applicants application under Turkey-ECAA, with costs.

69. MI v SSHD (JR/3375/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with paying 50 % costs of the matter, failing to refuse the Applicant’s application for residence card on the basis of extended family member.

70. HK 2 v SSHD (JR/2372/2019) – SSHD detained the Applicant by refusing his application for leave to remain and served him in person while reporting. SSHD withdraw the decision by which application became outstanding and paid costs for it.

71. HK 3 v SSHD (JR/6018/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to remain submitted in October 2017 whereas while the application was pending, the Applicant has filed ILR application and this had legal effect of superseding the application.

72. MS v SSHD (JR/996/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs refusing the Applicant’s application for entry clearance as visitor stating that he has failed to pay the litigation debt owed from his previous judicial review. SSHD position was incorrect because the Applicant has paid before making an application.

73. KN v SSHD (JR/9858/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to remain. She agreed to reconsider her decision and issue new decision on the application.

74. SA 3 v SSHD (JR/2465/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs refusing the Applicant’s application for Tier 4 student.

75. MA v SSHD (JR/1540/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and provided the route to apply for BRP.

76. AP v SSHD (JR/5298/2019) – UTJ order stated to pay the Applicant’s costs on the basis that SSHD has issued removal window in the decision and maintained at PAP stage.

77. UW 4 v SSHD (JR/3577/2019) – SSHD conceded with costs, reconsidering the Applicant’s application for Indefinite leave to remain and failed to make decision on AR.

78. UW 5 v SSHD (JR/5798/2019) – Matter was against the SSHD decision on the applications filed in February and April 2016. Balajigari v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 673 was raised that human rights claim should be recognised while making decision.

79. PL v SSHD (JR/652/2018) – SSHD conceded claim with costs failing to return the Applicant’s passport.

80. JA 2 v SSHD (JR/4081/2018) – SSHD refused the applicant’s application for naturalisation based on an outstanding litigation debt. Successfully challenged the decision and the SSHD conceded on the issue of litigation debt but disputed paying costs of the proceedings. Upper Tribunal Judge Pitt awarded costs to the applicant.

81. BR v SSHD (JR/920/2018) – SSHD withdrawn the decision to refuse entry at port and conceded the claim. Agreed to pay costs and damages for unlawful detention.

82. FN v SSHD (JR/3975/2018) – SSHD conceded claim with costs, withdrawing the Applicant’s asylum claim to certify and issue new decision within 3 months.

83. SB v SSHD (JR/2491/2018) – SSHD conceded claim with costs, agreeing to reconsider the Applicant’s application for entry clearance as a visitor to UK.

84. MA 2 v SSHD (JR/3678/2018) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to issue the BRC within 1 month of the sealed consent order.

85. TJ v SSHD (JR/2872/2018) – SSHD to withdraw the removal window issued in decision for the application of discretionary leave and conceded claim with costs.

86. UW 3 v SSHD (JR/2585/2018) – SSHD conceded this matter against the decisions for application of leave to remain and maintained at the Administrative Review.

87. MP v SSHD (JR/6445/2018) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge. The case raised an important issue of extension of the High Court’s principle in MK v SSHD [2017] EWHC 1365 to register stateless children over 5 years of age as British national to granting leave to remain to stateless children under 5 years of age. SSHD only conceded once permission to bring judicial review had been granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb.

88. SS v SSHD (JR/259/2018) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs refusing the application for leave to remain on the basis of British partner and children in which the Applicant was the primary carer of the his partner.

89. OJ v SSHD (JR/5828/2018) – SSHD conceded claim costs failing to issue the permanent residence card to the Applicant and issued right after issuing the proceedings.

90. AB v SSHD (JR/5706/2018) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs failing to decide the Applicant’s application for Tier 4 student within 3 months of the court order.

91. KM v SSHD (JR/5726/2018) – SSHD conceded the claim having granted asylum to the Applicant. SSHD agreed to pay costs for the proceedings.

92. MB v SSHD (JR/5416/2018) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs, withdrawn the decision to refuse the Applicant’s application of Tier 1 Entrepreneur.

93. RM 2 v SSHD (JR/257/2018) – SSHD conceded the claim on unreasonable delay from her side to the application within the given timeframe.

94. MJ 2 v SSHD (JR/4420/2018) – This case involved the SSHD’s repeated unlawful decision making in respect of Applicant’s permanent residence application. The Respondent conceded the claim once permanent residence had been granted and was ordered to pay legal costs of the Applicant.

95. MJ v SSHD (JR/5983/2017) – This case concerned the SSHD’s delay in considering the Applicant’s Tier 1 Entrepreneur application. Following expedition being granted by an Upper Tribunal Judge, the SSHD issued the decision and conceded the claim with costs.

96. AP v SSHD (JR/5928/2017) – SSHD conceded the claim against delay in implementing the decision of the First Tier Tribunal. The SSHD promptly implemented the First Tier’s decision and was ordered to pay costs of the Applicants.

97. MK v SSHD (JR/7842/2017) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to reconsider the decision refusing the applicant’s Tier 1 Entrepreneur extension application for the second time. Both the applications were submitted by previous legal representative and refused. Once the judicial review succeeded, detailed evidence was provided to the SSHD upon reconsideration and Tier 1 Entrepreneur leave to remain was granted to the applicant.

98. ZT v SSHD (JR/9571/2017) – SSHD made a subsequent decision while initial decision was challenged, thus making the initial challenge academic. SSHD disputed paying costs of the proceedings. Following written submissions Upper Tribunal Judge Kopieczek awarded costs to the applicant.

99. HS v SSHD (JR/615/2017) – SSHD agreed to reconsider the application for Tier 1 Entrepreneur and issue new decision within 3 months. SSHD conceded the claim with costs.

100. GF v SSHD (JR/9854/2017) – SSHD conceded with costs, agreeing to reconsider the application for an EEA residence card.

101. AA v SSHD (JR/5631/2017) – SSHD to reconsider the Applicant’s application for permanent residence card. The claim was conceded with costs.

102. AA v SSHD (JR/10381/2017) – SSHD conceded claim with costs in which the curtailment decision was never served to the client.

103. SG 2 v SSHD (JR/5865/2017) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to remain and remove him from UK.

104. RN 3 v SSHD (JR/10262/2017) – SSHD accepted that she erred when rejected the application for leave to remain and agreed to reconsider the Applicant’s application for leave to remain as the partner of Tier 4 migrant. SSHD lost the claim and paid costs for the proceedings.

105. UW 1 v SSHD (JR/6546/2017) – Matter was challenged against the SSHD decision to treat the FLRFP application as variation of the ILR application. The matter was conceded with costs.

106. UW 2 v SSHD (JR/8278/2017) – SSHD conceded this matter to reject the application being invalid.

107. RM v SSHD (JR/6600/2017) – SSHD conceded with costs refusing the Applicant’s application for Tier 1 Entrepreneur and paid costs.

108. MG v SSHD (JR/2060/2016) – SSHD unreasonable delay in deciding the application filed in March 2015. SSHD refused to pay Applicant’s costs for the proceedings and matter proceed to file the cost submissions. UTJ Gill considered, and order was made for SSHD to pay the costs to the Applicant.

109. JA v SSHD (JR/7040/2016) – SSHD refused client’s Tier 1 Entrepreneur application for ILR based on accelerated route. SSHD alleged that he must show 10 full time jobs for 12 months. SSHD conceded the claim following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Perkins and agreed to pay costs of the proceedings. The applicant was subsequently granted ILR.

110. SK v SSHD (JR/8570/2016) – SSHD lost the judicial review claim and her decision to refuse ILR application of applicants based on Tier 1 Entrepreneur accelerated route was quashed by Honourable Mr Justice Lavender following a substantive hearing. SSHD paid 80% costs of the proceedings and applicants were subsequently granted ILR.

111. SK v SSHD 2 (JR/13060/2016) – SSHD conceded on the basis the Applicants granted Indefinite leave to remain and agreed to refund the HO fees, AR fee in relation to the Applicants second refusal.

112. UM v SSHD (JR/7770/2016) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to withdraw the decision under challenge relating to paragraph 322(5). The applicant was subsequently granted ILR.

113. SG v SSHD (JR/11060/2016) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to remain and remove him from UK.

114. NT v SSHD (JR/11494/2016) – The Applicant made the application for Tier 1 Entrepreneur which was refused and AR filed. Due to incorrect date on decision and serving date was different, SSHD did not accept the AR. After filing the evidence of in time AR, unreasonable delay in deciding the application. PAP was filed lead to judicial review. SSHD conceded the claim with costs.

115. HB v SSHD (JR/5121/2016) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs refusing the Applicant’s application for Tier 1 Entrepreneur.

116. HK v SSHD (JR/4380/2015) – SSHD lost the matter to reject the application for leave to remain. Later, SSHD agreed to reconsider the application and paid costs for the proceedings.

117. HG v SSHD (JR/14084/2015) – SSHD conceded with claim refusing the application for leave to remain as Tier 1 Entrepreneur.

118. AM v SSHD (JR/1479/2015) – SSHD conceded the claim, refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to remain which was superseded with Tier 4 application. She had withdrawn the decision.

119. IM v SSHD (JR/14961/2015) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs, withdraw the IS.96 and agreed the Applicant’s leave will continue by virtue of Section 3C of IA 1971 and granted 60 days of to make new application following return of the passport.

120. SA v SSHD (JR/8594/2014) – The case involved consideration of what amounts to permitted course for the student. Following grant of oral permission by an Upper Tribunal Judge, the Home Office conceded the claim with costs.

1. MR v SSHSC (H02CL833) – The Health Secretary agreed to pay damages to this client who suffered a heart attack while in Managed Quarantine Facility. The Health Secretary also agreed to pay complete costs of this lengthy litigation and the entire judicial review proceedings as well.

2. KF v MT (K00CL546) – The claim was issued against a travel agency for failing to pay legal costs. A previous proposed litigation resulted in the travel agent paying damages and agreeing to pay the legal costs. Once proceedings were issued, the travel agency promptly paid the legal costs.

3. KS v SSHD (proposed litigation) – The SSHD issued £10,000 fine to the Claimant for breaching Managed Quarantine Facility. Mr Jamali challenged the legality of the fine and the SSHD promptly withdrew the fine. Mr Jamali then claimed damages and the SSHD paid £6,000 in damages to the Claimant.

4. SA v SSHD (proposed litigation) – The SSHD issued £10,000 fine to the Claimant for breaching Managed Quarantine Facility. Mr Jamali challenged the legality of the fine and the SSHD promptly withdrew the fine. Mr Jamali then claimed damages and the SSHD paid £6,000 in damages to the Claimant.

5. MW v SSHD (proposed litigation) – The SSHD agreed to pay damages of £15,750 to the Claimant entering the Claimant’s home and unlawfully detaining him. The Claimant’s visa was also reinstated.

6. HR v SSHD (proposed litigation) – The SSHD agreed to pay damages of £15,750 to the Claimant entering the Claimant’s home and unlawfully detaining him. The Claimant’s visa was also reinstated.

7. FC v SSHD (proposed litigation) – The SSHD agreed to pay damages and legal costs for refusing entry to the Claimant at Airport. The SSHD also subsequently granted him entry in the United Kingdom.

8. GN v SSHD (G01CL846) – After first conceding the judicial review in the High Court, the SSHD subsequently also conceded the claim for unlawful detention in Central London County Court and paid damages to the claimant for unlawful detention and all our legal costs.

9. RA 2 v SSHD (G00CL264) – SSHD conceded the claim of unlawful detention in Central London County Court with costs and paid damages for unlawfully detaining the claimant.

10. MA 3 v SSHD (G02CL784) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs for unlawful detention in the Central London County Court and agreed to pay damages for unlawful detention.

11. QS 4 v SSHD (proposed proceedings) – SSHD conceded the proposed claim with costs in respect of unlawful detention of the applicant nearly 5 years ago. The applicant was represented by a different legal representative and it was never checked whether he had been unlawfully detained and his case wrongly refused.

12. RR v SSHD (proposed proceedings) – The SSHD after conceding the judicial review claim with costs also conceded the claim for unlawful detention and agreed to pay damages to the claimant.

13. GZ v SSHD (proposed proceedings) – SSHD was unable to remove the claimant from the United Kingdom following a successful challenge to removal and unlawful detention which was subsequently conceded by the SSHD with costs and damages.

14. MM 3 v SSHD (proposed proceedings) – SSHD conceded the claim for loss of earnings for the time his ILR had been unlawfully revoked. SSHD agreed to pay damages to the applicant for his loss of earnings.

15. RN 2 v SSHD – The Defendant conceded the claim and paid damages and costs to the Claimant, after first conceding the judicial review claim following grant of permission by the High Court.

16. PG v SSHD (proposed proceedings) – After succeeding in the Upper Tribunal, the UKVI granted leave to remain to the Applicant. However, we then challenged the SSHD to pay damages for loss of earnings. The SSHD conceded the claim, paid costs and damages.

17. YW v SSHD (proposed proceedings) – SSHD agreed to pay damages to the Applicant following delay in issuing his BRP card.

The Independent –  Barrister Zahab Jamali representing Pakistani families in legal action against UK hotel quarantine 

The News –  Two UK judges slam treatment of Pakistanis in quarantine represented by Barrister Zahab Jamali

Geo News –  UK Judges berate treatment of Pakistanis in quarantine

Dawn News –  Genuine difficulties faces by travelers in quarantine, UK Courts

Daily Times –  Court orders UK govt to provide all facilities to quarantining British Pakistani travellers

The News –  Man suffers heart attack after being denied aid at hotel quarantine

The News –  Family from Pakistan (red-listed) gets exemption from quarantine represented by Mr Jamali

Freemovement – Our case changes the law