The secure CJSM email is:

From the outset of his career at the Bar, Shuyeb has specialised in the fields of immigration, crime and public law, and ultimately in cases that engage human rights issues and/or have an international dimension.

Immigration & asylum

In his immigration practice, Shuyeb appears in all tiers of the Tribunal, as well as in the appellate courts, acting for both individuals and representative organisations. He advises on all aspects of immigration law, both private and commercial. He advises on asylum claims, claims both within and outside the Immigration Rules, in cases of deportation and in connection with commercial applications relating to sponsorship licences and the points based system. Shuyeb also advises and undertakes emergency applications and applications seeking injunctive/interim relief. A search on Bailii for Shuyeb’s name will bring up his prolific activity in the field of immigration law beyond the example cases listed below. Shuyeb has also been involved in very many actions before the Court of Appeal and High Court that have mostly settled without resolution being necessary by the courts upon grants of permission.

Recent cases

  • A (Ethiopia) v SSHD [2003] UKIAT 103: In this case, guidance was given to immigration judges as to the use of interpreters so as to conform to the requirements of procedural fairness;
  • GS (Serbia & Montenegro) v SSHD [2005] UKIAT 121: This was one of the first Article 8 decisions to emphasise that ‘public interest’ was not to be regarded as a factor which carried determinative weight in every case in which it constituted a relevant consideration;
  • SA (Kuwait) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 1157: This was the first decision of the Court of Appeal to qualify the ‘Tanveer Ahmed principles’ on the approach to documentary evidence in an immigration context;
  • R (on the application of Chiwondo) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 1866 (Admin): The Administrative Court held that a relationship between a 27 year old woman and her aunt was capable of amounting to ‘family life’ for the purposes of an Article 8 claim. In the event Shuyeb successfully quashed the ‘manifestly unfounded’ certificate attached to his client’s Article 8 claim, which the SSHD had sought to rigorously defend in reliance upon the well known dicta in Kugathas;
  • OO (Nigeria) v SSHD: Shuyeb secured permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal upon the argument 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 the client was entitled to, and would be granted, indefinite leave to remain.
  • AA (Pakistan) v SSHD: Shuyeb secured permission from the Court of Appeal (Longmore LJ) to move for judicial review of the SSHD’s refusal to treat AA’s representations as a ‘fresh claim’ as defined by the Immigration Rules. AA was an individual seriously discredited by findings made by an earlier Tribunal and whose assertion that he had made a fresh claim, by way of further evidence of the nature already considered previously, had been rejected by no less than three High Court judges and a judge of the Court of Appeal. The substantive case is now reported as R (on the application of) AA v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 433. Case lost, but not without a fight;
  • R v Thangeswarajah: Shuyeb secured permission from the Court of Appeal to challenge the determination of the Upper Tribunal by which it overturned the decision of the First Tier Tribunal allowing the appeal of adult children to enter the UK on Article 8 grounds notwithstanding that it had dismissed the appeal in accordance with the requirements of the Immigration Rules. The Upper Tribunal took the view that the failure to come within the rules was fatal to the Article 8 claim and found there were no ‘exceptional circumstances’. Shuyeb had argued that the terms of the Immigration Rules were such that there was no inconsistency between a case being dismissed under them 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, accepting the errors of the Upper Tribunal, and agreed to the determination of the First-tier Tribunal being re-instated without qualification;
  • In R (on the application of) Bahadur v SSHD:  Shuyeb argued before the Administrative Court during emergency hours that all the courts that had thus far deliberated upon his client’s case had erroneously ignored the right his client had acquired to remain in the UK on grounds of lawful long residence. Applications for extensions in that capacity had been rejected by all chambers of the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. However, Shuyeb successfully halted the student’s removal (having taken over the case 2 hours before the proposed removal) by arguing that this right had legitimately accrued during the periods that his client’s student appeals litigation had ensued and notwithstanding periods during which his client had formally become an overstayer. The SSHD ultimately granted Shuyeb’s client indefinite leave to remain;
  • R (on the application of) Sundarakumar v SSHD: Shuyeb secured an interim injunction prohibiting the removal of his client, a failed asylum seeker from Sri Lanka subject to a deportation order, following a criminal conviction. Shuyeb’s client’s asylum claim had been discredited by several tribunals. Nonetheless, Shuyeb’s was one of only five out of a hundred such applications seeking similar relief to successfully argue that their proposed removal on a charter flight scheduled to depart that day was arguably unlawful. Shuyeb then secured a further injunction in relation to the same client following the SSHD’s attempt remove him again, apparently having addressed the contentions by reference to which the original injunction was granted;
  • Shuyeb was junior counsel in the Cambridge College test case; and counsel on behalf of “The Madame of the West End“, successfully defending against the proposed deportation of one of the most prolific brothel owners to have been convicted by a criminal court in the United Kingdom, and who was a failed asylum seeker.


In his criminal practice, Shuyeb defends in the Crown Court and at appellate level.  The exclusive focus of his practice is fraud and immigration-related offences, both national and international, as well as extradition.

Recent cases

  • R v Anser [2011] EWCA Crim 55, [2011] 2 CrAppR(S) 47: An appeal against a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment originally imposed in respect of an offence of facilitating a breach of immigration law. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced by two thirds to 4 months’ imprisonment. This case was the first case since Van Bin Le and Stark [1999] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 422, decided over 12 years previously, to address the appropriate sentence for unlawful immigration facilitation as now defined;
  • R v Egwuatu [2011] EWCA Crim 622: An appeal against a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment originally imposed in respect of an offence of gaining a pecuniary advantage by illegal employment. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to 8 months’ imprisonment. In so doing the Court of Appeal accepted the argument that though Shuyeb’s client had admitted to, and was to be sentenced in respect of, offences under the Theft/Fraud Acts, guideline cases dealing with offences of using false documents in the immigration context actually set the appropriate sentencing yardstick in his kind of case, and amounts earned in the course of such offending (in this case over £100000) were irrelevant.

Public law & judicial review

Advice and representation in actions against institutions and public bodies.

Recent cases

  • R (on the application of Campbell) v SSHD [2003] EWHC 2681 (Admin): The leading case concerning the doctrine of substantial compliance in the context of form filling;
  • Jeffers v Labour Party [2011] EWHC 529 (QB): Shuyeb acted for the claimant as junior counsel to Ian Macdonald QC, challenging the control exercised by the Labour Party over the internal administration of one of its affiliate organisations.


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


Shuyeb has conducted a number of seminars within chambers.

Hobbies & interests

Travel & painting


  • Bengali-Sylheti (fluent)
  • Hindi/Punjabi (proficient)