by on Sonia Ferguson
Sonia is a specialist public law, human rights and immigration/asylum barrister. She frequently appears in appeals against decisions of the SSHD in the First-Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and has extensive experience in asylum, protection and trafficking claims and representing minors and vulnerable individuals. She has particular expertise in representing appellants in Human Rights appeals under Appendix FM or Appendix Private life, related entry clearance and deportation appeals and appeals against deprivation of citizenship and revocation of protection status.
Sonia is experienced in EU law and appeals under the EUSS. She is happy to accept instructions regarding public law and judicial review challenges to decisions of the Secretary of State especially certification decisions in human rights and protection claims, the refusal of further submissions as amounting to a fresh claim and allegations of deception.
Sonia is frequently instructed to challenge or defend tribunal decisions in error of law proceedings and has successfully obtained permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on many occasions. Sonia is authorised to accept direct access instructions.
Education
- University of Law, LLB (Hons) (BPTC: Very Competent; GDL: Commendation)
- University of Sussex. MA (20th C Literature & Critical Theory): Distinction;
- University of Sussex. BA (Hons) Literature: 2:1 with Distinction for dissertation
- St Paul’s Girls’ School
Notable Cases
- AAZA (Yemen) CA-023-002175 – the appellant was recognised as being entitled to Humanitarian Protection for his country of origin but it was refused him on the basis that he had another country of return and the burden was on him to show he would not be admitted to that country (of which he was not a national and had no permanent right to remain, nor indeed any extant visa). The Court of Appeal did not accept that the risk of indirect refoulement as a consequence was something that should have been considered within the ambit of his statutory appeal. It is nevertheless open to the appellant to bring a fresh claim based on the SSHD’s policy, which was not followed, of granting HP solely for the country of origin.
- AB – UI-2023-003260 – the appellant brought several unsuccessful appeals in the first-tier claiming to have retained rights under the EEA Regulations; he was recognised as having settled status under the EUSS when he brought his appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
- KB [2022] UKUT 00161- A reported decision of a presidential panel; the panel accepted that it was an error to fail to consider the motivation of former traffickers to trace the appellant to any place of relocation. It was also accepted that the Judge’s points-based balancing exercise was not the approved approach and insufficiently flexible to be compliant with article 8.
- RMS – UI-2022-006389. Despite a very strong article 8 claim and only one discrete instance of offending the appellant lost his appeal against deportation in the first-tier and did not get permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. He was unsuccessful in a cart JR but did obtain permission from the Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Leggatt considered it arguable the Judge had misapplied s117C(5) and “unduly harsh” as clarified in the only recently promulgated HA (Iraq). The matter was remitted by consent to the first-tier where the appellant succeeded and successfully defended a further appeal by the SSHD in the Upper Tribunal.
- SH – JR-2021-LON-001732, MT – JR 2134 20. Following JR proceedings challenging the refusal to treat further submissions as a fresh claim the applicants were afforded a right of appeal in the FT which resulted in an unchallenged grant of refugee status.
