The secure CJSM email is:

Jackie specialises in all aspects of immigration and asylum law, including immigration and asylum related judicial review applications. She has been a specialised immigration practitioner since 1996 and she particular interests in representing people who are persecuted for their faith, and in humanitarian cases.

Immigration & asylum

Jackie advises at all stages of the application process and can also give advice about onward appeals and alternative remedies. She offers each client the most effective solution for their individual circumstances. She accepts instructions in deportation, entry clearance, points-based system, human rights (mainly Article 3 and Article 8 ECHR cases), asylum, EEA cases and public (administrative) law and judicial review.


  • Ahmed v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 583 AA was a single vulnerable female from Ethiopia. The Court of Appeal remitted the case (which had been the Country Guidance case on this issue) to the Upper Tribunal. This was one of the first cases in which previous favourable credibility findings were ‘ring-fenced’ by the court. The appeal was allowed by the UT under Article 3 of the ECHR and AA was subsequently granted ILR;
  • TO (Nigeria) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 1395 TO was a mother of three British children who had been subject to deportation proceedings. She relied on the 7 year child concession and the significance of her children’s British Citizenship. This case pre-dated ZH(Tanzania). The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal, and the case was settled by consent. TO was later granted ILR;
  • CL (Vietnam) v SSHD [2008] All ER (D) 105 (Dec), The Times January 7 2009 CL was a young Vietnamese man who had arrived in the UK as a 13-year-old with his 14-year-old brother. Although CL’s initial application for ELR/DL was refused by SSHD, CL succeeded in his appeal under Article 8 of the ECHR. SSHD then appealed to the UT. Before the Upper Tribunal, SSHD argued that the Judge had erred in considering the reception and care arrangements in respect of the removal of a UASC as part of the appeal, when this was a matter for SSHD to consider only at the point of removal. Allowing CL’s appeal and overturning BV (Vietnam) [2004] UKIAT 00148, the Court of Appeal held that SSHD could not reserve the assessment of reception and care arrangements until after the appeals process was exhausted, and that this important consideration fell within the issues to be decided by a Judge seized of an appeal on human rights grounds;
  • Ozoemene and others v SSHD (Identity and Passport Service) [2013] EWHC 2167 IO and his family members had all applied for British passports on the basis of documentation obtained from Nigeria. SSHD had seized and retained the British passports of three of the Claimants, and had refused to issue a passport to the 4th. Mr Justice Foskett held, allowing the Claimants’ substantive application for Judicial Review, that the onus was on the IPS to take all reasonable steps to establish whether documents regarded as merely suspicious were genuine or not, and that “substantial and well-founded reasons” were needed before doubting the validity of documents.

Pro bono

Jackie offers a flexible fees policy and she also accepts pro bono instructions


LLB Hons

Hobbies & interests

  • Biblical Christianity
  • Buying far too many cookbooks
  • Walks by the sea in Kent