Our network has experienced and seasoned barristers
Barristers Hub provides excellence advocacy and advice in areas covering Immigration, Public law, Family, Civil Litigation and much more. We pride ourselves on our ability to assess a client’s legal matter and act upon it appropriately and in ways that are most beneficial to them.
Barristers Hub members have a proud history of winning cases of public importance. Our barristers have fought, and continue to fight in countless cases to defend the rights of those that we represent.
I was represented by Mr Muhammad Zahab Jamali for my refusal to entry clearance application. He succeeded before a full bench of Court of Appeal on 25 February 2021, whereby High Court judge set aside the decision of Upper Tribunal, granted permission on both grounds and has directed that the matter is remitted back to the Upper Tribunal to be heard by the President or a High Court Judge (alone or as a panel). The matter has been published by the Court of Appeal on 19 March 2021 with neutral citation  EWCA Civ 346.
I was stopped and interviewed by the Immigration Officers at the airport while coming back from holidays in Albania. They allegedly cancelled my EEA residence card. I was detained, and removal directions set to send me back to Albania. Mr Muhammad Zahab Jamali represented me and successfully able to stop the removal, then quashed decision to cancel my EEA residence card. He succeeded in the judicial review claim in High Court and the Home Office conceded the claim with costs. The matter of unlawful detention was transferred to Central London County Court. The claim for my unlawful detention was also successful and the Home Office agreed to pay damages and legal costs of the proceedings. I have since also been granted a further right to reside in the United Kingdom under EU regulations.
I had been represented by Mr Muhamamd Zahab Jamali since 2012. I was detained twice (2012 and 2017) and both times, the Home Office decisions have been successfully quashed. Home Office also conceded the claim for unlawful detention and paid damages to me. Most recent case involved was refusal of my nationality and allegation of deception. Mr Jamali was able to successfully overturn the allegation of deception. The Home Office overturned the decision and granted nationality.
Hassan Ali Mohammed
The Home office refused my application in 2015. I got advice from Mr Muhamamd Zahab Jamali that the decision was legally and procedurally flawed. I finally instructed Mr Jamali to challenge the decision in 2017. As soon as the challenge was made, the Home Office agreed to issue a fresh decision thereby making my stay from 2015 till 2017 lawful as well. After successful challenge and litigation, I have applied for Indefinite leave to remain based on lawful residence in UK and I have been granted the same just because of the expertise by Mr Jamali.
Muhammad Umer Chaudhry
I was represented by Mr Muhammad Zahab Jamali in overturning the Home Office’s decision to refuse my application to be naturalised as a British national. I was also being represented by Mr Jamali since 2015, when I got detained and Home Office tried to remove me from UK on the basis of deception. After challenging the decision by way of judicial review, Mr Jamali won the case and now I have been naturalised as British national.
I have been represented by Mr Muhammad Zahab Jamali since 2013. I was issued with 60 days letter to make a fresh application, after conceding a judicial review claim in 2014. The matter was challenged in Court of Appeal and permission was granted. The Home Office conceded the claim and issue a fresh BRP card. Since than, I have been granted leave to remain as student and now I have successfully obtained the Indefinite leave to remain by the assistance of Mr Jamali’s efforts and best results in my case.
Quhyum Hussain Syed
I was in a relationship with a settled person. I took advice from Mr Muhammad Zahab Jamali at his previous firm and was advised that I can technically apply for ILR. I was detained in the past and my application was refused. In 2019, I instructed Mr Jamali for ILR. The application was refused and then started a series of litigation. The first litigation was against the refusal to refuse ILR. The Home Office conceded the claim but issued a new refusal. This was challenged by way of a second judicial review. After successful litigation, I was granted with ILR. Most recently, I got the damages for my unlawful detention in 2015.
I have long and unfortunate history. I instructed Mr Jamali in his previous firm, when my application for ILR as Tier 1 General had been refused. I made a new application and then tried to vary it. Mr Jamali was able to rectify the variation issue but then the ILR application was refused. This has resulted in a long series of litigation against initial refusal, then two bail forms, then a second substantive decision, then a third substantive decision and lastly based on delay. He succeeded most of the judicial reviews with costs. Me and my family were recently granted leave to remain.
Muhammad Tariq Pathan
I instructed Mr Jamali in his previous law firm when my application for ILR as Tier 1 (General) was refused on the reasoning that I was undesirable under paragraph 322 (5) for failing to pay correct taxes to HMRC or filing inflated accounts with SSHD. He challenged the decision by way of judicial review and at the same time also submitted a second application for ILR based on long residence. Although permission was granted by Upper Tribunal in 322 (5) JR, the substantive claim was refused. Mr Jamali then appealed to the Court of Appeal. While the matter was pending in the Court of Appeal, I submitted second ILR application on the basis of long residence was refused with a right of appeal. At appeal before First Tier Tribunal, it was held that my applications should never have been refused and Home Office conduct was termed as historic injustice. I was granted ILR. Mr Jamali then offered to settle the appeal in the Court of Appeal subject to costs. The Home Office agreed that the appeal can be conceded but did not agree to pay the costs. The matter proceeded before Master in COA and costs of complete proceedings in the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal were awarded to me. Recently, as a result of all of the above, Mr Jamali has sought refund of Home Office fees, Administrative Review charges etc from the SSHD, by way of pre-action protocol. The Home Office has conceded the point and agreed to refund the same.