George can be instructed for Rule 39 (interim relief) applications, pre-application review of Rule 47 procedure compliance as well as drafting grounds to the ECtHR.

During his main traineeship at the ECtHR in 2019, George was involved in a number of high profile Strasbourg cases. Amongst others, he has gained expertise specifically on the applicability and merit of Articles 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 and Article 1 (Protocol no. 7) of the Convention.

• Nicolaou v. Cyprus (app no. 29068/10) (Chamber case): violation of Article 2 (right to life)
• Jonsson and Hall v. Iceland (68273/14) (Grand Chamber case): allegation of violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial)
• K (anonymised) v. the United Kingdom (Single judge, unreported): no violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial)
• Drousiotis v. Cyprus (app no. 42315/10) (Communicated case): allegation of violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
• Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania (app no. 80982/12): Article 1 Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens)

• R (on the application of Alam) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKUT (JR/1691/2020)

Permission successfully granted for judicial review in a challenge concerning the appropriate weight to be attached to the APPG and NAO reports in ETS/TOEIC cases.  

• Ranjit Kaur v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKUT (HU/01090/2019) 

This ETS case had previously reached the Court of Appeal before it returned to the Upper Tribunal. One of the arguments made was that as a matter of law it is irrelevant whether an Appellant in an ETS human rights appeal has a “weak” or “strong” private life claim. What ought to be accounted for by the Tribunal is a Razgar proportionality exercise under Article 8 ECHR within the sphere of fairness. The appeal was successful, with George Mavrantonis appearing for the Appellant. 

• Ali v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKUT (HU/14779/2019)

“I am grateful to Mr Mavrantonis…because points that are fundamental are sometimes so obvious that the authority for them is forgotten. He relies on a decision going back to 1893 and in particular remarks in a speech of the Lord Chancellor Lord Hershell LC”, wrote Judge Perkins in his judgment setting aside the Appellant’s previous adverse decision and allowing the appeal. 

• Mehdi v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] FTT (PA/00841/2019)

The case concerned a challenge against a decision to deport a Lebanese national. The Appellant had lived in this country for 30 years but had amassed 17 convictions for 30 offences. Relying on OH (Algeria) [2019] EWCA Civ 1763 and in line with AM (Somalia) [2019] EWCA Civ 774, the Tribunal concluded that it was in the public interest to deport the foreign criminal, as per s.32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. George successfully appeared for the Respondent, instructed by the Secretary of State. The Judge referred to George’s “thorough cross-examination and his detailed and focused closing submissions”.

• Holding v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKUT (HU/04146/2019)

Decision of the First-tier was set aside following grounds of appeal drafted and George’s submissions in the Upper Tribunal. 

• Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Kabul Bhatia [2018] UKUT (HU/03190/2018)

George successfully appeared for Mr Bhatia in this matter concerning the correct test that ought to be used in ETS/TOEIC deception cases as per SM and Qadir v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1167.

• Franco v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKUT (EA/03642/2018)

Matter involving the distinction between comprehensive sickness insurance (CSI) under the EEA Regulations 2016 and the ruling in Ahmed v The Aire Centre [2014] EWCA Civ 988 in relation to permanent residence for EEA nationals, following a previous unsuccessful appeal in the lower court. George successfully appeared for the Appellant. 

• Kasongo v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] FTT (HU/16389/2019)

George persuaded the Court to depart from a previous adverse determination (Devaseelan) and to allow the appeal by establishing a link between music and political expression in the Congo based on the findings in AB and DM [2005] UKIAT 118. 

• Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] FTT (HU/06855/2019)

The Court referred to George’s “helpful skeleton argument” which enabled the Judge to ultimately allow the appeal on grounds of 20-years residence. 

• AD v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] FTT (RP/00113/2018)

A public interest s.32 deportation appeal, which followed the appellant’s earlier unsuccessful application in Draga v. the United Kingdom (app no. 33341/13). The appellant had amassed 8 serious convictions, totaling 13 offences and 4 cautions. The appeal was dismissed and protection status as a refugee has been revoked. George appeared for the Secretary of State. 

• Hosanny v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] FTT (EA/00791/2019)

A challenge against an IS.151A decision and notice of removal. The case concerned the definition of “new matters” (Quaidoo [2018] UKUT 87) where the Appellant relied on a pure human rights case. George successfully appeared for the Appellant with the appeal being allowed on Chikwamba principles. 

• Ravichandran (+3) v Entry Clearance Officer [2019] FTT (HU/18931/2018)

A matter concerning the correct exemptions to be applied in disabled applicants taking the required English language test for entry clearance applications. George appeared successfully for the four appellants. 

• VA and JA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] FTT (PA/10028/2018)

The Judge has commended George’s impact: “I was persuaded to adopt Mr Mavrantonis’s insightful views as my own” due to how “very cogently” submissions were made and to “endorse his relevant comments and critique”. 

• AR v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] FTT (PA/12232/2018)

LGBT asylum appeal where George appeared for the State. The Judge referred to George’s strengths in cross-examination: “The couple were subjected to detailed parallel questioning in cross-examination. The questions by Mr Mavrantonis were thorough and designed to test the veracity and substance of the couple’s claimed relationship”.  

• Asima Ali and a child v Entry Clearance Officer [2018] FTT (HU/14890/2017)

An entry clearance case where the genuineness of the sponsor’s employment in the United Kingdom was impugned. George proved his case and successfully appeared for both Appellants. 

• Ritendra Chinari v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] FTT (HU/11125/2017)

Paragraph 322(5) HMRC tax deception case where George successfully appeared for the State. 

• The Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn
• Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

• ‘‘Deport now, Appeal later?” (Counsel Magazine, January 2019, co-authored with Jonathan Trussler)

• ‘‘Can Kiarie and Byndloss threaten certification under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002?”
 (Westlaw Thomson Reuters, August 2018)

• ‘‘Law and Practice following the Lord Falconer Bill: Should England and Wales reform the law on Assisted Suicide?”
 (Cambridge Law Review, October 2017)

• ‘‘Jury System in Modern Rational Law: Is the jury system an absurd institution whose only claim to legitimacy is its archaic root?’’ (Gray’s Inn Law Journal, July 2016)

• Public access qualified
• Accredited civil and commercial mediator
• MHFA

• 2014 – University of Surrey, LLB Bachelor of Laws (Hons)
• 2015 – University College London, LLM Master of Laws
• 2016 – BPP University London, BPTC

• Greek
• French

• Cyprus (2019)

In his free time, George is an amateur photographer and a keen philatelist. He was also a former sergeant in the Army for two years.