The secure CJSM email is:

“a very thorough and competent barrister… has an eye for detail, with the ability to handle any situation at court …”

Alizah Kazim, Fragomen LLP

“…extremely charming and robust advocate with an intellectually rigorous and meticulous legal mind… absolute pleasure to work with.”

Amer Rahman, Partner, Farani Taylor Solicitors

“I commend his thorough preparation of cases… has an extremely high success rate… clients consistently praise his excellent performance in court”

Anoja Muthusamy, APP Solicitors

“… impressed by his knowledge of immigration law and by his industry and hard work. I have no doubt he will go far”

Ian MacDonald QC

“…consistently provides timely and highly professional advice, a true pleasure to work with and someone I would highly recommend”

Tom Cracknell, Joint Legal Team, Reading Borough Council

“works on complex immigration appeals and judicial reviews… a powerful advocate who can deliver sharp arguments … always in control, clients praise his hard work and dedication to their cases… always a pleasure working with.”

Saud R. Alvi, SRA Advisory

“Has a very clinical approach to legal issues.”

Riz Majid, Head of Litigation, Bark & Co Solicitors Ltd

“…thoroughly approachable; gets to the crux of the matter very quickly and is a fierce advocate.”

Jay Moghal, Partner, Lexus Law

“passionate  and skilful …presents himself with ease and charisma in all his dealings … delivery of work in the immigration field has always been of the highest order… commended for using novel arguments with flair and conviction…highly recommended.”

Deena Patel, Solicitor and Director, Queenscourt Law

“… a brave, imaginative and intelligent advocate whose extreme enthusiasm for the law is matched by his unrelenting concern for the interests of his client, certainly a practitioner to watch out for.”

Manjit Gill QC

“…polite, efficient and extremely accomplished advocate in immigration matters… no hesitation in recommending him.”

Boota Mondair, Mondair Solicitors

“We have all been working with him for over 20 years… professional and knowledgeable …  works as a team, always maintaining high professional standards.”

Srikanth Solicitors

“…always a pleasure to work with… sharp as a whip and lightning fast when thinking on his feet… receives lots of positive reviews from our clients…”

Vishang Shah, Westend Consultants

“…always provides us with clear and succinct advice in all matters relating to complex UK immigration law, he has been highly accessible and very efficient in all areas.”

Pam Barar, Senior Solicitor, Barar and Associates

“…extremely thorough …able to both skilfully navigate highly complex factual-legal scenarios and to make them comprehensible in his submissions”

Mike Poulter, Immigration Solicitor, Turpin Miller LLP

“…one of the most dynamic barristers I have had the privilege to instruct… professional and courteous but firm … displaying great interpersonal skills, clients are always thankful he was instructed on their behalf…”

Oluwole Osibona, Partner, Freemans Solicitors

“Shuyeb is immensely knowledgeable, user friendly and prompt. In short, he is my ‘go to’ for immigration law expertise.”

Diana Cannings, Senior Solicitor, Team Leader, Slough Children First

 

A highly regarded practitioner specialising in the fields of immigration, crime and public law, and ultimately in cases that engage human rights issues and/or have an international or foreign dimension.

A Social and Economic History graduate of the LSE, Shuyeb worked at the Department of Trade and Industry before undertaking (on completion of his CPE at the University of Birmingham and his BVC at BPP London) a specialist immigration/public law pupillage at Enfield Chambers, under the guidance of James Gillespie, the co-author of the seminal Immigration Law Handbook, during which he was seconded as a trainer of caseworkers at the IAS.

Adept, in particular, in handling cases where there is a crossover/interaction between immigration, criminal and family law, Shuyeb has navigated innumerable successes before the First Tier and Upper Tribunal (AIC), the Administrative Court and both divisions of the Court of Appeal, reflecting his depth of knowledge, phenomenal work rate and ability to take matters in these areas from the bottom to the top with skilful and imaginative written and oral advocacy.

Shuyeb was junior counsel, led by the late Ian Macdonald QC, in both the Cambridge College test case, which concerned allegations that foreign students were coming to the UK to attend bogus colleges, leading to a parliamentary inquiry and the introduction of sponsor licence requirements and the ‘points-based system’; and in Jeffers v Labour Party [2011] EWHC 529 (QB), a case challenging the control exercised by the Labour Party over the internal administration of its affiliate BAME – Black and Minority Ethnic – group.  Most recently, Shuyeb was Counsel for the appellant in Zulfiqar (‘Foreign criminal’; British citizen) [2020] UKUT 312 (IAC), where the Upper Tribunal gave guidance on the reach of statutory provisions governing the assessment of Article 8 rights raised in response to the proposed deportation of “foreign criminals”.

Shuyeb is qualified to accept instructions from members of the public directly under the Direct Access Scheme.

 

Immigration & asylum

Shuyeb represents all manner of individual and organisations, including local authorities, in their confrontations and negotiations with the UK’s labyrinthian immigration laws. He appears in all tiers of the tribunal, as well as before the appellate courts.

Shuyeb has in-depth knowledge of UK laws/rules in respect of:

  • Nationality
  • Asylum
  • Human rights
  • Family, student, business, employee and cash capital migration
  • Sponsorship licensing
  • Deportation
  • Extradition
  • Detention
  • Immigration bail
  • EU free movement
  • The interaction and inter-relationship between immigration, crime and family jurisdictions
  • Emergency applications and applications seeking injunctive/interim relief.

Cases

Shuyeb’s notable cases cover a wide time frame. The following exemplify the quality of Shuyeb’s interventions in a range of cases of factual and legal interest and of complexity. They show, in particular, Shuyeb’s consistent ability to identify novel arguments, and the contribution he has made to the development of immigration law and procedure:

  • MA (Transfer of Proceedings – Evidence Part Heard) Ethiopia [2003] UKIAT 00103: the Upper Tribunal gave important and binding guidance to Immigration Judges as to the use of interpreters so as to conform to the requirements of procedural fairness on the basis of Shuyeb’s grounds and submissions. The case set a benchmark for the conduct of judges when confronted with disputed translation of evidence.
  • SA (Kuwait) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 1157: the Court of Appeal accepted Shuyeb’s arguments contending that the utility of Tanveer Ahmed v SSHD [2002] UKIAT 439 principles in evaluating the reliability of documents had to be qualified in approaching documents such as passports and other evidence of identity. This case was the result of Shuyeb challenging the approach of three sets of earlier tribunals, in the words of the Court of Appeal, “not without justification”. The case was of huge significance to the undocumented Kuwaiti Bedoon community, who though in possession of documents showing they had no status, were not accepted to be stateless by reference to an assessment of their overall credibility.
  • MAM v SSHD [2018] UKAIT (RP/00096/16), Shuyeb led a junior in a second appeal before the Upper Tribunal to navigate a successful  challenge against the legality of the SSHD’s decision to deport a refugee to Somalia following his criminal conviction. The case was factually and legally complex,  engaging the law of the revocation of, and exclusion from, Refugee Convention and humanitarian protection, and required navigation of dense country guidance qualified by very recent Court of Appeal authority on the approach to Article 3 in cases where the cause of harm was not the result of any act of the receiving state:
  • IB (Ghana) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 146: Shuyeb successfully represented an honourably discharged former British soldier, securing permission from the Court of Appeal to challenge, on rationality grounds, a determination of the Upper Tribunal to deport him following a conviction for firearms offences arising in highly peculiar circumstances. The grant of permission led to a reinstatement of Shuyeb’s client’s permission to stay in the UK. This case followed GS (Article 8, public interest not a fixity) Serbia and Montenegro [2005] UKAIT 00121 in which Shuyeb was amongst the first to argue that “public interest” was not to be regarded as a factor which carried fixed or determinative weight in every case in which it constituted a relevant consideration in an Article 8 proportionality inquiry. Only very recently has that principle been re-emphasised by the Court of Appeal (e.g., in Akinyemi v SSHD No.2 [2020] EWCA Civ 2098).
  • R (on the application of) Chiwondo [2012] EWHC 1866 (Admin), well before subsequent authorities confirming the misinterpretation of the principles adumbrated in Kugathas, Shuyeb secured agreement that a relationship between an adult niece and her aunt could amount to ‘family life’ for the purposes of Article 8 of the ECHR; and, accordingly, a certificate that such a claim was ‘manifestly unfounded’ should be set aside with the effect that Shuyeb’s client’s statutory right of appeal, otherwise constrained by the certificate, was restored.
  • OO (Nigeria) v SSHD Shuyeb secured permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the ground that one of the effects of delay in decision making by the SSHD should be the introduction of something akin to a species of estoppel, whereby the SSHD is prevented from relying on Article 8(2) justification for interfering with private life, namely the promotion of efficient immigration control. This case was settled by consent upon the basis that all levels of the tribunal had erred and that Shuyeb’s client was entitled to ILR.
  • B v SSHD: well before the line of cases culminating in Hoque & Others v SSHD [2020] EWCA Civ 1357, Shuyeb successfully argued that individuals, such as his client, had a claim to remain in the UK on grounds of lawful long residence, able to rely on periods during which litigation had ensued and notwithstanding such persons being overstayers. The SSHD ultimately conceded and granted Shuyeb’s client ILR.
  • T v SSHD: prior to cases such as Agyarko and Akinyemi, Shuyeb secured permission from the Court of Appeal to argue that the status of the Immigration Rules were such that there was no inconsistency between a case being dismissed under them, despite purported human rights compliance, but then being allowed under Article 8. Following the grant of permission, and shortly prior to the hearing of the appeal, the SSHD conceded the appeal.
  • Sathiyaseelan v SSHD [2002] EWCA Civ 1244: the Court of Appeal endorsed Shuyeb’s argument, amongst the first, that subjective mental anguish per se, even where risk of feared harm was not objectively well-founded, would be sufficient in principle to engage the protection of Article 3 of the ECHR. That principle has been picked up and expanded upon in subsequent cases arguing the engagement of Article 3 in cases of suicide where the risk is found to be capable of being managed.

Over the last twelve months, Shuyeb’s notable cases include:

  • Zulfiqar (‘Foreign criminal’; British citizen) [2020] UKUT 312 (IAC): SZ was convicted of murder when he held British citizenship. He subsequently renounced his citizenship on qualified terms and was refused a re-instatement when those terms were unfulfilled, but instead made the target of a deportation order. Challenging the legal framework used to deploy the order, Shuyeb contended for a limitation of the legal reach of provisions intended for use against foreign citizens, so as to exclude persons such as SZ, who were British when committing the offence by reference to which deportation was said to be justified, and so not ‘foreign’ criminals, and could not have been liable to deportation but for having renounced their British citizenship, being circumstances entirely unconnected to the criminal conduct. The case is factually and legally unprecedented, and was subjected to examination by a panel of the Upper Tribunal, whose decision has been reported as guidance on the reach of statutory ‘foreign criminal’ deportation provisions, namely that it applies to potentially British citizen criminals. Shuyeb continues to challenge the decision to deport SZ by use of ‘foreign criminal’ provisions.
  • TI v SSHD:  the First Tier Tribunal dismissed TI’s continued claim to an EU residence card following the end of his (non-marital) relationship with an EU citizen. The Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal on the basis that grounds drafted by Shuyeb, in contending that TI was entitled to ‘retained rights’ in the same way persons married to but then divorced from an EU citizen were, despite the absence of express provision, but so as to avoid discrimination prohibited by the Directives the UK’s EU regulations were intended to give effect to, were arguable, noting that it was “not aware of any authority on the point”:
  • SK v SSHDSK’s application to live in the UK permanently with his wife and child was refused on the basis he had been dishonest when making declarations to HMRC/UKVI. Shuyeb successfully contended before the Upper Tribunal that the First Tier Tribunal had addressed the wrong factual anomaly when upholding this decision. The Upper Tribunal originally disagreed with Shuyeb’s separate contention, of wide-ranging significance, that even where a case fell to be allowed without the need to resolve the deception allegation – in SK’s case, by the date of the Upper Tribunal hearing considering the legality of the First Tier Tribunal decision, SK had a claim to remain by reference to the status of his child who was by then British, a further hearing was nevertheless appropriate to enable, distinctly, adjudication of the deception allegation. Highly unusually, in its decision on reflection, the Upper Tribunal admitted it was wrong, commending the procedural onward course advanced by Shuyeb. This conclusion is of wider significance because it retains for individuals, such as SK, the opportunity to use an appeal in respect of a refusal to grant leave to remain as a vehicle to have adjudicated an allegation of deception even where such allegations are immaterial to the immediate claim to remain, whose refusal was, strictly speaking, the only subject matter of the appeal.
  • VK v SSHDVK was a discredited asylum seeker. He got ILR under the legacy scheme, but, following a conviction for fraud, became subject to ‘automatic deportation’. The Upper Tribunal agreed with grounds settled by Shuyeb that, in dismissing his appeal against such deportation, the First Tier Tribunal applied the wrong deportation provisions.  Determining the appeal itself, the Upper Tribunal acceded to Shuyeb’s arguments that, notwithstanding the adverse asylum claim findings, and VK’s inability to come within the statutory exceptions to deportation, his was one of those “rare” cases able to establish “very compelling circumstances over and above the exceptions” overriding the extremely strong public interest in deportation. The case further sets a yardstick for identifying “rare” cases capable of succeeding in challenges to deportation, which in the case of VK included the unusual circumstances in which he became involved in the index offence and the peculiarities of the circumstances in which he secured ILR.
  • GS v SSHDGS was engaged in a complex triple (asylum, EU, deportation) appeal.  He feared return to Afghanistan and was the partner an EU citizen, but had acquired a series of drug supply convictions.  Shuyeb had navigated GS to victory before the First Tier Tribunal. On the SSHD’s appeal, the Upper Tribunal agreed with Shuyeb that the EU regulations considered by the First Tier Tribunal were, contrary to Home Office guidance and the SSHD’s submissions at appeal, applicable. Despite, however, accepting failures of the First Tier Tribunal to take account of all requisite considerations, the Upper Tribunal decided, in agreement with Shuyeb, that GS’s case still fell to be allowed under such EU regulations, which in fact subsumed all deliberations required by the other limbs of the appeal. The case was significant in pointing out guidance issued by the Home Office on the reach of its EU regulations was wrong and to be disapplied.

Crime

In his criminal practice, Shuyeb defends in the Crown Court and at appellate level.  However, the exclusive focus of his practice in this area is immigration-related offences, fraud and extradition.

Cases

Shuyeb’s notable cases in crime, where new law has been developed, include:

  • R v Anser [2011] EWCA Crim 55: Shuyeb successfully appealed a sentence imposed in respect of an offence of facilitating a breach of immigration law on the basis that the ambit of facilitation excluded those helping illegal migrant on humanitarian grounds. The case was the first, since Van Bin Le and Stark [1999] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 422, decided 12 years previously, to address the appropriate sentence for unlawful immigration facilitation as now defined. Shuyeb’s client’s sentence was reduced so that he was released the very same day.
  • R v Egwuatu [2011] EWCA Crim 622: Shuyeb successfully appealed a sentence imposed in respect of an offence of gaining a pecuniary advantage by illegal employment on the basis that, guideline cases dealing with offences of using false documents in the immigration context, not under the Theft/Fraud Acts, actually set the appropriate sentencing yardstick where the offender was an illegal migrant. Shuyeb’s client’s sentence was reduced by a third.

Public law & judicial review

Shuyeb provides advice and representation in actions against institutions and public bodies. However, Shuyeb’s focus in this area of practice is decisions taken in the immigration context or where decisions are taken where there is a ‘foreign’ element.

Cases

Examples of Shuyeb’s work include:

  • R (on the application of) Campbell v SSHD [2003] EWHC 2681 (Admin): In this case, Shuyeb was the first to argue that the doctrine of ‘substantial compliance’ ought to apply in relation to the consideration of whether immigration forms were adequately filled in to render the application they constituted ‘valid’. The point was won in principle but lost on the facts, “notwithstanding the skilful way in which it was advanced” .
  • Jeffers v Labour Party [2011] EWHC 529 (QB): A case challenging the control exercised by the Labour Party over the internal administration of its affiliate BAME – Black and Minority Ethnic – group.

 

Achievements

Education

  • BSc, London School of Economics
  • CPE, University of Birmingham
  • BVC, BPP Law school, London

Memberships

Languages

Shuyeb also speaks Bengali (Sylheti) fluently as well as Hindi/Urdu/Punjabi at conversational level.

Menu