1. AW v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 346 - Court of Appeal sets aside decision of Upper Tribunal Judge. The Court considered whether procedural fairness requires applicant to be provided an opportunity to respond to allegation of dishonesty in an entry clearance application. Carr LJ commented at [32] that: ‘this is an important point which does not appear to have been considered directly in any of the authorities to date’. Permission was granted and the matter was remitted back to the Upper Tribunal to provide detailed guidance on this novel argument.

2. PG v SSHD (JR/1345/2020) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge O’Callaghan and withdrew the decision under challenge, whereby Applicant Tier 4 application had been refused due to a criminal conviction.

3. TM v SSHD (JR/2386/2020) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry clearance as a visitor

4. JN v SSHD (CO/4700/2019) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry to the claimant and to remove him from the United Kingdom. The SSHD subsequently also paid damages for unlawfully detaining the claimant.

5. MP v SSHD (JR/6445/2018) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge. The case raised an important issue of extension of the High Court’s principle in MK v SSHD [2017] EWHC 1365 to register stateless children over 5 years of age as British national to granting leave to remain to stateless children under 5 years of age. SSHD only conceded once permission to bring judicial review had been granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb.

6. AA v SSHD (JR/3331/2019) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the removal window issued to remove the applicant. The applicant was subsequently granted residence card under the EEA Regulations.

7. NG and another v SSHD (JR/2398/2019) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse applicants’ application as Tier 1 Entrepreneur, following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Latter. The applicants were subsequently granted leave as Tier 1 entrepreneur and the SSHD also refunded their Home Office fees.

8. GK v SSHD (CO/709/2020) - Claimant had challenged the delay in deciding revocation of his British nationality. SSHD promptly then issued the decision but contested the costs. Fordham J awarded costs to the claimant.

9. GF v SSHD (JR/934/2020) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry clearance as Tier 1 Entrepreneur to the applicant. The applicant was subsequently granted entry clearance as Tier 1 Entrepreneur successfully.

10. AB v SSHD (JR/1436/2020) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry clearance as Tier 1 Entrepreneur, following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Keith

11. GN v SSHD (CO/30/2020 and G01CL846) - SSHD conceded the claim in High Court with costs and withdrew the decision to cancel residence card and remove the claimant. SSHD subsequently also conceded the claim for unlawful detention in Central London County Court and paid damages to the claimant for unlawful detention.

12. OE v SSHD (CO/1952/2020) - SSHD conceded the claim in High Court with costs. The claimant had challenged the redactions in the subject access report. SSHD provided the relevant disclosure.

13. MZ v SSHD (JR/475/2020) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge to refuse the applicant’s ILR application.

14. MZ 2 v SSHD (JR/1065/2020) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew a second decision under challenge to refuse the applicant’s ILR application, following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede.

15. MZ 3 v SSHD (CO/1169/2020) - SSHD conceded the claim in High Court with costs. The claimant had challenged the redactions in the subject access report. SSHD provided the relevant disclosure.

16. RA v SSHD (CO/4319/2019) - SSHD attempt to remove the claimant from the United Kingdom was stopped following grant of injunction by Honourable Mrs Justice Steyn DBE. The SSHD subsequently agreed to reconsider the decision but disputed costs. Following written submissions, costs were awarded to the claimant.

17. RA 2 v SSHD (G00CL264) - SSHD conceded the claim of unlawful detention in Central London County Court with costs and paid damages for unlawfully detaining the claimant.

18. MA 1 v SSHD (CO/4098/2019) - SSHD’s attempt to remove the claimant from the United Kingdom was stopped following grant of injunction by Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE. SSHD disputed the costs and the issue of costs was challenged in the Court of Appeal but subsequently in a connected claim for unlawful detention, SSHD conceded the costs of these proceedings as well

19. MA 2 v SSHD (JR/162/2020) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to withdraw the decision under challenge. SSHD had relied on a medical expert disputing a qualified psychiatrist’s reports, but upon research by Mr Jamali it transpired that SSHD’s medical expert was in fact a GP with specialisation in dermatology.

20. MA 3 v SSHD (G02CL784) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs for unlawful detention in the Central London County Court and agreed to pay damages for unlawful detention.

21. SJ v SSHD (JR/6059/2019) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge to refuse applicant’s further submissions following grant of permission by Honourable Mrs Justice Foster DBE. The case related to Tier 1 Entrepreneur applicant, who had wrongly been advised by the previous legal representative

22. OE v SSHD (JR/4385/2019) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge to refuse the applicant’s further submissions following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Norton-Taylor. The case related to medical evidence related to minor child of the applicant that had not been considered by the SSHD properly under 276ADE and Section 55 BCIA 2009.

23. QS v SSHD (JR/3900/2019) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge to refuse the applicant’s ILR application.

24. QS 2 v SSHD (JR/5617/2019) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision under challenge to refuse the applicant’s ILR application, following a contested hearing in the Upper Tribunal where permission was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede. The case involved cross checking information from subject access report to show that the SSHD had wrongly detained the applicant some 4 years ago and in fact his case remained outstanding all throughout. SSHD subsequently granted ILR to the applicant

25. QS 3 v SSHD (JR/1713/2020) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to refund the applicant HO fee for previous application(s).

26. QS 4 v SSHD (proposed proceedings) - SSHD conceded the proposed claim with costs in respect of unlawful detention of the applicant nearly 5 years ago. The applicant was represented by a different legal representative and it was never checked whether he had been unlawfully detained and his case wrongly refused

27. MI v SSHD (JR/1375/2019) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to withdraw the decision rejecting the applicants further evidence in relation to his asylum claim

28. MI 2 v SSHD (JR/4535/2019) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to withdraw the decision rejecting the applicants further evidence in relation to his asylum claim, following grant of permission at a contesting oral hearing by Upper Tribunal Judge Smith

29. MK v SSHD (JR/7842/2017) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to reconsider the decision refusing the applicant’s Tier 1 Entrepreneur extension application for the second time. Both the applications were submitted by previous legal representative and refused. Once the judicial review succeeded, detailed evidence was provided to the SSHD upon reconsideration and Tier 1 Entrepreneur leave to remain was granted to the applicant.

30. ZT v SSHD (JR/9571/2017) - SSHD made a subsequent decision while initial decision was challenged, thus making the initial challenge academic. SSHD disputed paying costs of the proceedings. Following written submissions Upper Tribunal Judge Kopieczek awarded costs to the applicant.

31. RR v SSHD (CO/6185/2016) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and withdrew the decision to refuse entry and remove the claimant from the United Kingdom. The SSHD also conceded the claim for unlawful detention and agreed to pay damages to the claimant.

32. GZ v SSHD (CO/2565/2017) - SSHD was unable to remove the claimant from the United Kingdom following a successful challenge to removal and unlawful detention which was subsequently conceded by the SSHD with costs and damages.

33. JA v SSHD (JR/7040/2016) - SSHD refused client’s Tier 1 Entrepreneur application for ILR based on accelerated route. SSHD alleged that he must show 10 full time jobs for 12 months. SSHD conceded the claim following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Perkins and agreed to pay costs of the proceedings. The applicant was subsequently granted ILR.

34. JA 2 v SSHD (JR/4081/2018) - SSHD refused the applicant’s application for naturalisation based on an outstanding litigation debt. Successfully challenged the decision and the SSHD conceded on the issue of litigation debt but disputed paying costs of the proceedings. Upper Tribunal Judge Pitt awarded costs to the applicant.

35. SK v SSHD (JR/8570/2016) - SSHD lost the judicial review claim and her decision to refuse ILR application of applicants based on Tier 1 Entrepreneur accelerated route was quashed by Honourable Mr Justice Lavender following a substantive hearing. SSHD paid 80% costs of the proceedings and applicants were subsequently granted ILR.

36. SK v SSHD 2 (JR/13060/2016) – SSHD conceded on the basis the Applicants granted Indefinite leave to remain and agreed to refund the HO fees, AR fee in relation to the Applicants second refusal.

37. JP v SSHD (C8/2016/2301) - SSHD conceded the appeal in Court of Appeal with costs against refusing the applicants’ application on the basis of TOEIC test.

38. MP v SSHD (C6/2018/0948) - SSHD conceded the appeal in Court of Appeal in relation to paragraph 322(5) but disputed costs. Following detailed submissions, Court of Appeal awarded costs to the applicant.

39. UM v SSHD (JR/7770/2016) - SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to withdraw the decision under challenge relating to paragraph 322(5). The applicant was subsequently granted ILR.

40. EB v SSHD (JR/6291/2019) - SSHD conceded the claim and agreed to withdraw the decision to remove the applicant. SSHD disputed costs but Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman awarded costs to the applicant.

41. MM v SSHD (JR/2530/2019) - SSHD revoked the applicant’s ILR based on deception. SSHD made numerous allegations. Mr Jamali refused to comment on the allegations on behalf of the client and sought disclosure. SSHD never made the disclosure and conceded the claim with costs.

42. MM 2 v SSHD (JR/3901/2019) - SSHD’s supplemental decision to issue bail form prohibiting the applicant from employment was successfully challenged by the applicant. SSHD conceded the bail form with costs. During this time, the applicant also applied and was naturalised as a British national.

43. MM 3 v SSHD (proposed proceedings) - SSHD conceded the claim for loss of earnings for the time his ILR had been unlawfully revoked. SSHD agreed to pay damages to the applicant for his loss of earnings.

44. ED v SSHD (JR/3131/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to issue removal window notice to the applicant and agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

45. EU v SSHD (JR/4379/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to issue removal window notice to the applicant and agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

46. EU 2 v SSHD (JR/5471/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to refuse applicant’s ILR application under Turkey-ECAA, by drawing negative inferences but not allowing the opportunity to the applicant to respond. SSHD also agreed to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings.

47. EU 3 v SSHD (JR/1213/2020) – SSHD failed to following consent order in JR/5471/2019 and failure to comply the Cour Order was challenged. SSHD conceded the claim with costs.

48. EO v SSHD (JR/4172/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to issue removal window notice to the applicant and agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

49. EO 2 v SSHD (JR/5482/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to refuse applicant’s ILR application under Turkey-ECAA, by drawing negative inferences but not allowing the opportunity to the applicant to respond, following grant of permission by Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb. SSHD also agreed to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings.

50. MK v SSHD (JR/3769/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to issue removal window notice to the applicant but disputed costs. Upper Tribunal Judge Sheridan awarded costs to the applicant.

51. AM v SSHD (JR/456/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to refuse permanent residence application of the applicant, with costs. The applicant was subsequently granted permanent residence.

52. RN v SSHD (JR/5618/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim to refuse to refund application fee of the applicants’ previous application from 2011. SSHD also agreed to pay costs of the proceedings.

53. RN 2 v SSHD (JR/837/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim alleging failure to implement Court Order in JR/5618/2019, with costs.

54. LS v SSHD (JR/5064/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim for failing to return the sponsor’s BRP card, with costs.

55. NK v SSHD (JR/1570/2020) – SSHD conceded the claim to refuse applicants application under Turkey-ECAA, with costs.

56. MR v SSHD (JR/165/2021) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs for failing to decide the Applicant’s application within 3 months as agreed.

57. MI v SSHD (JR/3375/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with paying 50 % costs of the matter, failing to refuse the Applicant’s application for residence card on the basis of extended family member.

58. MA v SSHD (JR/1540/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and provided the route to apply for BRP.

59. MA 2 v SSHD (JR/3678/2018) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs and agreed to issue the BRC within 1 month of the sealed consent order.

60. AP v SSHD (JR/5298/2019) – UTJ order stated to pay the Applicant’s costs on the basis that SSHD has issued removal window in the decision and maintained at PAP stage.

61. HS v SSHD (JR/615/2017) – SSHD agreed to reconsider the application for Tier 1 Entrepreneur and issue new decision within 3 months. SSHD conceded the claim with costs.

62. FN v SSHD (JR/3975/2018) – SSHD conceded claim with costs, withdrawing the Applicant’s asylum claim to certify and issue new decision within 3 months.

63. SB v SSHD (JR/2491/2018) – SSHD conceded claim with costs, agreeing to reconsider the Applicant’s application for entry clearance as a visitor to UK.

64. GF v SSHD (JR/9854/2017) – SSHD conceded with costs, agreeing to reconsider the application for an EEA residence card.

65. AA v SSHD (JR/5631/2017) – SSHD to reconsider the Applicant’s application for permanent residence card. The claim was conceded with costs.

66. TJ v SSHD (JR/2872/2018) – SSHD to withdraw the removal window issued in decision for the application of discretionary leave and conceded claim with costs.

67. PL v SSHD (JR/652/2018) – SSHD conceded claim with costs failing to return the Applicant’s passport.

68. BR v SSHD (JR/920/2018) – SSHD withdrawn the decision to refuse entry at port and conceded the claim. Agreed to pay costs and damages for unlawful detention.

69. SS v SSHD (JR/259/2018) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs refusing the application for leave to remain on the basis of British partner and children in which the Applicant was the primary carer of the his partner.

70. AA v SSHD (JR/10381/2017) – SSHD conceded claim with costs in which the curtailment decision was never served to the client.

71. JM v SSHD (JR/9568/2017) –

72. SG v SSHD (JR/11060/2016) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to remain and remove him from UK.

73. SG 2 v SSHD (JR/5865/2017) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to remain and remove him from UK.

74. NM v SSHD (CO/5985/2014) –

75. OJ v SSHD (JR/5828/2018) – SSHD conceded claim costs failing to issue the permanent residence card to the Applicant and issued right after issuing the proceedings.

76. AB v SSHD (JR/5706/2018) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs failing to decide the Applicant’s application for Tier 4 student within 3 months of the court order.

77. KM v SSHD (JR/5726/2018) – SSHD conceded the claim having granted asylum to the Applicant. SSHD agreed to pay costs for the proceedings.

78. MB v SSHD (JR/5416/2018) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs, withdrawn the decision to refuse the Applicant’s application of Tier 1 Entrepreneur.

79. MJ v SSHD (JR/5983/2017) –

80. MJ 2 v SSHD (JR/4420/2018) –

81. RN v SSHD (CO/6380/2012) – SSHD conceded and withdrew the Applicant’s decision for leave to remain as Tier 1 (PSW) application.

82. RN 2 v SSHD (CO/4730/2017) – The Applicant was detained at IRC and issued removal directions. Matter was challenged by way of judicial review and SSHD conceded the claim with costs. The Applicant was released on bail when the permission was allowed on all grounds.

83. RN 3 v SSHD (JR/10262/2017) – SSHD accepted that she erred when rejected the application for leave to remain and agreed to reconsider the Applicant’s application for leave to remain as the partner of Tier 4 migrant. SSHD lost the claim and paid costs for the proceedings.

84. UW 1 v SSHD (JR/6546/2017) – Matter was challenged against the SSHD decision to treat the FLRFP application as variation of the ILR application. The matter was conceded with costs.

85. UW 3 v SSHD (JR/8278/2017) – SSHD conceded this matter to reject the application being invalid.

86. UW 2 v SSHD (JR/2585/2018) – SSHD conceded this matter against the decisions for application of leave to remain and maintained at the Administrative Review.

87. UW 5 v SSHD (JR/3577/2019) – SSHD conceded with costs, reconsidering the Applicant’s application for Indefinite leave to remain and failed to make decision on AR.

88. UW 4 v SSHD (JR/5798/2019) – Matter was against the SSHD decision on the applications filed in February and April 2016. Balajigari v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 673 was raised that human rights claim should be recognised while making decision.

89. UW v SSHD (JR/1281/2020) – Matter was against SSHD unreasonable delay in deciding the Applicants application.

90. RM v SSHD (JR/6600/2017) – SSHD conceded with costs refusing the Applicant’s application for Tier 1 Entrepreneur and paid costs.

91. RM 2 v SSHD (JR/257/2018) – SSHD conceded the claim on unreasonable delay from her side to the application within the given timeframe.

92. MG v SSHD (JR/2060/2016) – SSHD unreasonable delay in deciding the application filed in March 2015. SSHD refused to pay Applicant’s costs for the proceedings and matter proceed to file the cost submissions. UTJ Gill considered and order was made for SSHD to pay the costs to the Applicant.

93. SB and another v SSHD (CO/3319/2017) – SSHD stopped the Claimants at the airport and retained the passports. Upon filing the judicial review, SSHD conceded, granted leave to enter and returned the passports to the Claimants.

94. HG v SSHD (JR/14084/2015) – SSHD conceded with claim refusing the application for leave to remain as Tier 1 Entrepreneur.

95. NT v SSHD (JR/11494/2016) – The Applicant made the application for Tier 1 Entrepreneur which was refused and AR filed. Due to incorrect date on decision and serving date was different, SSHD did not accept the AR. After filing the evidence of in time AR, unreasonable delay in deciding the application. PAP was filed lead to judicial review. SSHD conceded the claim with costs.

96. MS v SSHD (JR/996/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs refusing the Applicant’s application for entry clearance as visitor stating that he has failed to pay the litigation debt owed from his previous judicial review. SSHD position was incorrect because the Applicant has paid before making an application.

97. AP v SSHD (JR/5928/2017) -

98. HK v SSHD (JR/4380/2015) – SSHD lost the matter to reject the application for leave to remain. Later, SSHD agreed to reconsider the application and paid costs for the proceedings.

99. HK 2 v SSHD (JR/2372/2019) – SSHD detained the Applicant by refusing his application for leave to remain and served him in person while reporting. SSHD withdraw the decision by which application became outstanding and paid costs for it.

100. HK 3 v SSHD (JR/6018/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to remain submitted in October 2017 whereas while the application was pending, the Applicant has filed ILR application and this had legal effect of superseding the application.

101. HB v SSHD (JR/5121/2016) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs refusing the Applicant’s application for Tier 1 Entrepreneur.

102. AM v SSHD (JR/1479/2015) – SSHD conceded the claim, refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to remain which was superseded with Tier 4 application. She had withdrawn the decision.

103. KN v SSHD (JR/9858/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to remain. She agreed to reconsider her decision and issue new decision on the application.

104. SA v SSHD (JR/8594/2014) –

105. SA 2 v SSHD (C2/2016/4326) - SSHD conceded the matter refusing the application for leave to remain. The matter was challenged by judicial review JR/6161/2016 which was refused. It was subsequently challenged in Court of Appeal and Lord Justice Wilkie granted permission in this matter. The matter was concluded and SSHD paid costs for the proceedings.

106. SA 3 v SSHD (JR/2465/2019) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs refusing the Applicant’s application for Tier 4 student.

107. UA 2 v SSHD (C4/2015/0197) – The Applicant was refused entry at the airport and issued notice of refusal to enter. The decision was challenged by way of judicial review CO/3959/2014. JR was refused on papers but renewed and permission was refused by Honour Judge Sycamore at the hearing. The matter was subsequently challenged in Court of appeal. SSHD conceded and agreed to pay the costs of the complete proceedings.

108. IM v SSHD (JR/14961/2015) – SSHD conceded the claim with costs, withdraw the IS.96 and agreed the Applicant’s leave will continue by virtue of Section 3C of IA 1971 and granted 60 days of to make new application following return of the passport.