Reported Cases 

R & Y (Children), Re [2024] EWCA Civ 131: Mr Fazli appeared unled before Lady Justice Asplin, Lord Justice Baker and Lady Justice Andrews. This was an appeal brought with permission of Moylan LJ, from the decision of Recorder Hopkins KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court). Recorder Hopkins KC had ordered, amongst others, that the two children of the parties shall be returned to the UAE to the care of the Respondent father pursuant to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction. Mr Fazli persuaded the Court to grant permission to the Appellant to rely on her amended grounds focusing primarily on the basis of the difficulties that she had experienced whilst acting as a litigant in person. Further, Mr Fazli successfully argued that there was a failure to have adequate regard to all the facts found against the Respondent father in the fact-finding judgement when making the final welfare decision. The appeal was allowed. The Court gave guidance in respect of how ‘summary return’ proceedings may be considered and determined. Mr Fazli was instructed by Advocate on a pro bono basis.

Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 201: This was a successful appeal (before Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Green and Lady Justice Andrews) against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (IAC) which had ruled that the Secretary of State was correct to deprive the Appellant of his British citizenship on alleged deception grounds. The Court gave guidance on the probative weight of any evidence given by a witness that is not challenged in cross examination. Mr Fazli was led by Zane Malik KC. 

Kihembo v Disclosure and Barring Service [2023] EWCA Civ 1547: A successful appeal (before Lord Justice Macur, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Nugee) from the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), which had dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Disclosure and Barring Service to include her name in the Children’s and Adults’ barred lists. The Court provided guidance as to the fact-finding jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal and the correct approach as to the standard of proof. Mr Fazli appeared unled.

Rahaman & Anor v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 310: The correct approach to determining whether there has been ‘‘historical injustice’’ in immigration cases, in particular, in circumstances where the Appellant had not submitted some relevant documents in an earlier application for leave to remain (that was refused due to these documents not being provided) but which he then submitted at a much later application for leave to remain. 

Mariaddan v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd [2023] EWHC 207 (Admin): Whether a struck off solicitor, who was an undischarged bankrupt, was entitled to pursue his appeal against the decision of the Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal (which ordered that he should be struck off the roll) ‘‘by reference to the rule concerning the vesting of a bankrupt’s estate in the Trustee in Bankruptcy’’. There was also a substantive challenge to the SDT’s findings in respect of dishonesty.

Ahmed (historical injustice explained) [2023] UKUT 00165 (IAC): Led by Zane Malik KC before the Presidential Panel of the Upper Tribunal. Guidance provided on the meaning, establishment and scope of ‘‘historical injustice’’.  

AHN, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 582: Proper approach to the refusal of applications for naturalisation as British Citizens on ‘‘good character’’ grounds and the appropriateness of determining a potentially academic claim where there is a history of failed reconsiderations. The Claimant was an Afghan national whose application for naturalisation as a British citizen was refused by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘‘SSHD’’) on ‘‘good character’’ grounds, on the basis of his historical links to and support for the Afghan militant group, Hizb-e-Islami (‘‘HEI’’). He was a student representative of HEI in the student union, of which he was elected as the head. HEI had committed war crimes and human rights abuses in the 1990s. The Court found that the issues raised in this case ‘‘are capable of affecting the consideration by the Defendant of other similar cases’’ [18]. The claim was successful and the Applicant was subsequently naturalised as British citizen. This is a landmark judgement that provides guidance in respect of naturalisation applications generally but specifically those involving Afghan nationals with links to HEI. 

Lateef v General Medical Council [2022] EWHC 2743: Proper approach to the assessment of witness evidence given via poor video link from abroad in professional discipline cases involving doctors. Proper approach to the admission of fresh evidence in an appeal in circumstances where that exact evidence was born following events at the original hearing. Proper approach as to whether evidence given from abroad by a witness was admissible when no permission was obtained from the authorities of that country. There was also a substantive challenge to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s findings of dishonesty and sanction. 

Alaian & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 3012: Proper approach to the interpretation and application of the Secretary of State’s relevant guidance in respect of the refusal of naturalisation applications on ‘‘good character’’ grounds in nationality cases. 

Nazari v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2022] EWHC 1574 (Admin): Proper approach to the refusal of adjournment applications by the Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). The issues that were raised included the following: Whether the Investigator Officer’s initial recommendation decision of a financial penalty without the referral to the Tribunal gave rise to legitimate expectation on the part of the solicitor given that the authorised decision maker subsequently decided to refer the matter to the Tribunal. Proper approach for going behind criminal convictions. Whether deception can be distinguished from conventional dishonesty. 

Elais (fairness and extended family members) [2022] UKUT 00300 (IAC): Proper approach as to how immigration Tribunals should fairly conduct proceedings and permit the Secretary of State’s representatives to be properly able to undertake appropriate cross examination of witnesses. 

Mahandru v Nielson [2021] EWHC 2297: Appeared for the landlord in a successful defence of an appeal brought by a tenant against the decision of the lower Court that had refused his application for interim injunction to re-admit him into the property where he was previously living prior to being hospitalised.    

Other Notable Cases in the Court of Appeal 

The Queen (on the application of) Maribeth Joya v The Upper Tribunal (IAC) [2022]: The Rt Hon. Lady Justice Nicola Davies granted permission to appeal against the decision of the High Court, which had refused the Appellant’s application for permission to apply for (Cart) judicial review of the decision of the Upper Tribunal (‘‘UT’’). The UT had refused the Appellant’s application for permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which, in turn, had dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Interested Party (‘‘the Secretary of State’’), which, in turn, had refused her human rights claim.

Victoria Domingo Valente v SSHD [2021]: The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Lewis granted permission to appeal from the decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT), which had dismissed the Appellant’s appeal from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, which in turn had erred by failing to consider the Appellant’s eligibility for settled status under the 10 years long residence route. The Respondent Secretary of State for the Home Department then settled the matter by consent by agreeing to pay the Appellant’s cost and to remit the matter to the UT. Ultimately before the UT, the Respondent conceded the appeal and the Appellant was granted indefinite leave to remain. 

MM (Jamaica) v SSHD [2021]: The Rt Hon. Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing granted permission from the decision of the Upper Tribunal (IAC) which had allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, which, in turn, had allowed the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Home Secretary to deport him from the UK on the grounds of his historical criminal conduct. 

Other Significant Cases 

SRA v Mazumder and others (Case No: 12455-2023) – Mr Fazli represented and advised a solicitor (who was the second Respondent) in this three week long substantive and high-profile hearing before the SDT in respect of proceedings for professional misconduct. The second Respondent – with two others – was referred to the SDT following a referral by the High Court in the reported case of Al Mahfuz & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Anor [2019] EWHC 2318 pursuant to its Hamid jurisdiction for bringing ‘‘wholly bogus’’ judicial review claims. Mr Fazli’s client faced three allegations: (a) acting outside his competence by accepting supervisory responsibilities when he was inexperienced, (b) receiving client money into his personal bank account, (c) and retaining £160 of client money. Following, measured, careful and persuasive mitigation, the second Respondent was very pleased that the sanction he received was only a fine of £5000 whilst the other solicitor was struck off of the Roll. 

DA (BTAS hearing on 18/12/2023) – Mr Fazli represented (pro bono) a student member of the Inn before the Inn Conduct Committee for her failure to declare a previous conviction in her application to join the Inn and a later failure to promptly inform the Inn about a more recent caution. At the end of the hearing, the Committee decided that she was a fit and proper person to be called to the Bar.

The Queen (on the application of) Bradford Multiplex Broadcasting Corporation Limited -v- OFCOM (CO/3606/2021) – Judicial review challenge of OFCOM’s decision to reject the Claimant’s application for a small-scale radio multiplex licence and instead rewarding that licence to another competitor. 

The King (on the application of) Begum v SSHD AC-2023-LON-002511 – the High Court granted permission in this Right of Abode challenge in which Mr Fazli appeared for the Claimant, arguing that, contrary to the Defendant’s position, the Claimant was British by descent and that the Defendant’s assessment of the evidence was unreasonable. 

The King (on the application of) Ahmadzai & others v SSHD (CO/1175/2022) – Mr Justice Knowles granted permission in this claim where the challenge was (1) that the Secretary of State applied the wrong immigration rules, (2) that she failed to make a decision on the Claimants human rights claim, and (3) that she failed to exercise her discretion and depart from the rules. 

A & SINGH v I & Sanghera (2021) – High Court – Mr Fazli appeared for the Claimants and Mr Justice Jay granted injunctive relief. 

A v A (2022) – Central Family Court – Mr Fazli represented the Husband who was accused to have obtained the decree nisi and the decree absolute by fraud. The Queen’s Proctor was the intervener in the proceedings. 

MH v SSHD (2022) – substantive judicial review before the Upper Tribunal in a tax discrepancy case. Mr Fazli was led by Zane Malik KC.  

MH v RH (2021) East London Family Court – Mr Fazli represented the Appellant in an application for permission to appeal in underlying financial proceedings from the decision of the District Judge. 

The Mayor and The Burgess of Tower Hamlets v SR & JU & IJ (2021) – Mr Fazli represented the mother in proceedings for a Forced Marriage Protection Order. 

The Queen (on the application of) VAS v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR/6270/2018) – Permission granted by the Upper Tribunal in an immigration case. 

The Queen (on the application of) ES  v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR/3595/2019) – Upper Tribunal Judge Norton-Taylor granted permission to bring judicial review in circumstances where the Applicant had left the UK on two occasions to claim asylum in another EU country whilst his settlement application was pending but Mr Fazli persuaded the learned Judge at the permission stage that his departure wasn’t voluntary and, as such, the continuation of his leave under S.3C of the Immigration Act 1971 should not be effected. 

Umid [K] v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appeal no: PA/01673/2019) – Mr Fazli persuaded Upper Tribunal Judge Jordan that the Applicant’s S.3C leave continued even after he had made an out of time application to extend his discretionary leave to remain. The Applicant was granted settlement.  

• LLB Bachelors of Law (Hons) – First Class 
• BPTC 
• LLM 
• MA in Legal and Political Theory – Merit

• The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple
• Public Access qualified

• Harmsworth scholarship (£18500) from Middle Temple (2014)]
• Hardship Fund award from Middle Temple, whilst in Pupillage
• Local Authority Bursary (£4000), (2014)
• Gold Medal for promoting democracy, UK Youth Parliament elections (2011)
• ‘Outstanding Role Model’ certificate from the Headteacher

• Pashto
• Dari/Persian