Immigration | UK Bar

Doughty Street Chambers is a strong immigration set with significant expertise in judicial review proceedings challenging Home Office policy and decisions. The barristers are particularly well versed in asylum and deportation in the context of human rights law. A client describes them as "top-notch barristers for complex matters" and says that they "have been able to help with all aspects of cases, and they have a huge expertise." Members act for a large number of public access clients, as well as NGOs and private clients. Recent work highlights include leading the litigation efforts to prevent the Home Office from evicting failed asylum seekers during the pandemic, as well as presenting a challenge to the government's scheme of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda for their claims to be processed.

Garden Court Chambers is a highly esteemed immigration set with a strong track record in sophisticated cases at the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and SIAC. Areas of particular strength include complex asylum and deportation matters in the context of European human rights law, but also private, business and high net worth immigration. A source remarks: "The quality across the board is excellent," and that the set provides "quality and expertise." Barristers from the set act for a broad range of clients on the claimant side, including private individuals, children, families and sponsoring businesses. Recent highlights include representing asylum seekers in challenges to the Rwanda plan.

39 Essex Chambers is an impressive immigration and public law set, managed by director of clerking Sheraton Doyle, that has significant experience acting for both the government and claimants. An instructing solicitor stated that it is the "go-to set for difficult and complex matters."Members are frequently instructed in sensitive and high-profile litigation before the higher courts, including the SIAC. Areas of complementary expertise include asylum, EU law, civil liberties and nationality law. Barristers from the set have acted in prominent recent cases including concerning challenges to the policy of seeking to remove some asylum seekers to Rwanda for the determination of their claims.

Landmark Chambers offers deep expertise across a range of immigration matters, with a particularly strong bench at silk level. Areas of focus include deportation and unlawful detention matters, and immigration work involving EU law or the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. The barristers appear in all the higher domestic courts and act both for claimants and the Home Secretary. Landmark Chambers is noted for being "extremely compassionate" with vulnerable clients, combined with "expert knowledge of asylum and immigration law." A notable recent highlight is the set's involvement, on behalf of the Home Secretary, in a challenge to consider the legality of the continued application of the good character requirement in connection with the Windrush scheme.

Matrix Chambers is a leading set with significant experience in immigration matters at all levels, from sensitive and high-profile national security SIAC proceedings to Supreme Court appeals on the Home Office's approach to victims of trafficking. Other areas of strength include unlawful detention claims and removals. The set has been described as "particularly good in strategic litigation." The majority of the barristers' work in this area is for claimants. Recently, members led the representation of the claimants in AAA v SSHD, a judicial review claim concerning the Home Secretary's plan to remove failed asylum seekers to Rwanda.

One Pump Court is routinely called upon in a wide range of immigration matters, including deportation, asylum and nationality law, encompassing both human rights and public law challenges. The set has a strong focus on publicly funded claimant-side work, and members act for a diverse client roster including claimants with mental or physical health conditions, and victims of trafficking. Recent work highlights include representing the appellant in AEB v SSHD, where the basis of the appeal concerned the right to a fair hearing. Interviewees described the set as having "remarkable depth and breadth of experience and knowledge," and another said that members "work to the highest level of integrity."

Barristers at 1 Crown Office Row are notable for their appearances in immigration and asylum cases before the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, and in SIAC hearings. They have acted in prominent cases including AAA and Others v Home Secretary - the Rwanda removals policy challenge - and Begum v Home Secretary. The members are described as "particularly well versed in asylum and deportation in the context of human rights law" and are equipped to deal with "the most complex cases with utmost professionalism." The barristers at 1 Crown Office Row are deeply experienced in appeals involving an element of alleged criminality or national security concern.

Blackstone Chambers is a revered public law and human rights set with significant experience acting on behalf of claimants and the Home Secretary in complex immigration matters. The set has a diverse mix of silks and juniors and has been described as a "first stop for the broad range of counsel thereat." Areas of strength include complex asylum claims, unlawful detention and issues involving EU law. Its recent notable work includes a challenge to the UK government's refugee pushback policy, as well as appearing in the Supreme Court in Shamima Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

No5 Barristers' Chambers members regularly act in immigration and asylum matters at all levels of the court and tribunal system, and some have appeared before the ECJ and the ECtHR. Facilitated by the clerking team, led by Tony McDaid, they have a strong record of success in difficult challenges to deportation orders and asylum refusals, and possess significant expertise in relation to high-risk destinations for returnees. Solicitors describe the set as a "safe place for efficient and intelligent legal advice." Their key instructions include an appeal in the Supreme Court concerning deportation in an instance where the appellant had committed a crime but sought to resist deportation on the basis of undue harshness towards family members.