Jonathan Metzer

Immigration

Jonathan has already acquired extensive experience in asylum and immigration matters. Jonathan regularly appears on behalf of claimants before the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal in claims of asylum (including cases involving conditions in Sri Lanka, Iraq, Uganda, Rwanda, Egypt and Albania), human rights (with extensive experience of cases involving Article 3 and Article 8) and appeals under the EEA Regulations . He has achieved significant successes in both the deportation and non-deportation context. He is also instructed by claimants for immigration judicial reviews and urgent injunction applications against removal (including out of hours). He regularly undertakes work preparing grounds of appeal, grounds for judicial review and pre-action letters before claim. Jon has also gained experience representing claimants in unlawful detention claims.

His written and oral advocacy on behalf of immigration claimants has been praised by Judges of the High Court, Upper Tribunal and First-tier Tribunal.

Selected Cases

Asylum

• HMMR (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2021): Successful appeal on behalf of Sunni Kurd from Disputed Territories under guidance in SMO and Ors [2019].
• MR v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2020): Successful appeal against deportation for criminal offending on basis of well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka owing to familial connections to LTTE and evidence of significant political activity in the UK.
• NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2020): Successful appeal by 19 year old Sunni Kurd from Disputed Territories of Iraq under latest Country Guidance SMO and Ors [2019].
• BT v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2019): Successful appeal by a Ugandan man found to have a well-founded fear of persecution owing to his sexuality.
• CP v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2019): Successful appeal against revocation of refugee status arising out of 28-month prison sentence for participation in a large money laundering scheme.
• YK and Anor v Upper Tribunal (2018): Prepared claim for ‘Cart’ judicial review arising out of asylum appeal by a North Korean citizen unwilling to cooperate with South Korean authorities owing to concerns about her family, a matter not fully considered by existing Country Guidance. Case ongoing.
• XP v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2018): Successful appeal on the basis of fear of persecution by Sri Lankan government for perceived support for Tamil Tigers. Applicant had also been sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment in the UK.

Immigration

• OP (Ghana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2021): Successful appeal on behalf of HIV-positive Ghanaian with end stage kidney disease on the basis of Article 3 under principles in AM (Zimbabwe).
• CW v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2019): Successful appeal against deportation for historic criminal offending on the basis that this would result in unduly harsh consequences for the appellant’s British citizen child, who suffered from Oral Allergy Syndrome, severe asthma and anxiety. Instructed pro bono via Advocate. Praised in the judgment, with the Judge stating that “It is worth emphasizing that Mr Metzer provided first class representation pro bono.”
• Ope v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2019): Successful appeal under Article 8 on behalf of an elderly woman dependent on her family in UK due to severe cognitive impairment. Provided advice on evidence and represented the appellant at the hearing.
• Torabally v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2019): Successful appeal under Article 8 outside the Rules on the basis of ‘more than normal emotional ties’ between the Appellant and his brother in the UK.
• LC v Entry Clearance Officer (2019): Successful appeal against refusal of entry clearance for Brazilian mother (with British citizen child) to join Scottish father in the UK.
• De Assis v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2018): Successful appeal on behalf of an unmarried partner under the EEA Regulations. Praised in the judgment for providing “an excellent skeleton argument”.
• ML and Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2018): Successful appeal before the Upper Tribunal arising out of failure to apply principles relating to a ‘qualifying child’.
• Pem v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2018): Successful appeal before the FTT on the basis of family life outside the Immigration Rules.
• TR v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2018): Successfully appeared at FTT and Upper Tribunal in an appeal on the basis of private life outside the Immigration Rules in circumstances where the Legal Ombudsman had found that the claimant had received “poor service” from his previous solicitors. Instructed through the Bar Pro Bono Unit.
• EK & MN v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2018): Successful appeal against a refusal on the basis of a ‘marriage of convenience’. Praised in the judgment for “A thoroughly professional attitude”.
• Secretary of State for the Home Department v Gandhiraj (2017): Appeal before Upper Tribunal under Article 8 outside the Immigration Rules. Instructed through the Bar Pro Bono Unit.

Judicial Review

• AQ v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2020): Successful claim for judicial review arising from refusal of visit visa. SSHD agreed to reconsider decision following service of written grounds.
• SS v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2019): Successful claim for judicial review arising from unreasonable refusal of Article 8 claim without right of appeal. Decision withdrawn following grant of permission on the papers.
• MJ v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2018): Permission to apply for judicial review granted at oral hearing in relation to a claim that the SSHD erred in assessment of whether Section 3C Leave had been extinguished. Decision withdrawn following grant of permission.
• DC and OC v Entry Clearance Officer (2018): Successful judicial review of refusal of visit visas on the basis that the immigration interviews were conducted unfairly. Decision withdrawn and visit visas granted following consideration of written grounds.
• MC and ML v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2018): Out of hours application to the Administrative Court for an urgent injunction against removal to the Philippines. Praised by the judge for arguing “with considerable determination and ingenuity”.
• FN v Secretary of State for the Home Department  (2018): Out of hours application to the Administrative Court for an urgent injunction against removal to Afghanistan. Prepared judicial review grounds and undertook telephone hearing.
• MD v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2018): Upper Tribunal judicial review arising out of defective service of a decision notice. Prepared amended grounds and undertook hearing. Subsequently instructed to prepare application for appeal out of time.

Unlawful Detention

• HAS (Iraq) v Home Office (2021): Prepared Particulars of Claim in relation to Hemmati unlawful detention damages claim. Case successfully settled.