Natasha Barnes

Immigration

Natasha specialises in immigration matters and has experience appearing before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and Upper Tribunal in applications for Judicial Review and substantive appeals. She has experience in a wide range of areas including trafficking, asylum, human rights, unlawful detention, deportation, fresh claims, cases under the Points Based System and other immigration appeals.

Natasha is instructed in a number of national security appeals before the Court of Appeal, High Court and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

She is recommended as a leading junior by Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500. Recent editorial includes:

• “Natasha is excellent. She has first-class written skills and really good judgement.” Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Natasha is really good in high-pressure environments.” Chambers & Partners 2026
• “She stands out for her phenomenal attention to detail.” Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Natasha is an excellent public lawyer.  She is tenacious on behalf of her clients, but also fair.  She has extensive experience working in national security cases.” Legal 500 2026
• “Natasha is one of the best juniors I have ever worked with. She has got a real sense in identifying what is important and she brings a lot of common sense to the case.” Chambers & Partners 2025
• “Natasha is great. She’s really sensible and is one of the best drafters I know.” Chambers & Partners 2025
• “Natasha is an excellent advocate.  She always has a command of the details of a case and has an extensive knowledge of immigration and public law.” Legal 500 2025

Selected Cases

• R (AAA & Ors) v SSHD [2023] UKSC 42: Challenge to Government scheme to remove asylum-seekers to Rwanda for the processing of their asylum claims.
• R (GA) v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 304: Sole counsel before the Court of Appeal concerning whether the Special Immigrations Appeals Commission can refuse a remedy having concluded the SSHD’s decision to refuse GA naturalisation was procedurally unfair on review.
• R (Shahi) v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 1676: Sole counsel Court of Appeal concerning the circumstances in which a grant of interim relief should be treated as success for the purposes of granting a Claimant his costs in a judicial review claim where the claim settles before substantive determination by the Court.
• R (TN (Vietnam)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 41: Joined lead cases concerning the lawfulness of the Detained Fast Track Rules 2005. 10,000 asylum appeals were heard under the Rules.
• PN (Uganda) v SSHD [2020] EWCA Civ 1213: Court of Appeal decision concerning the fairness of asylum appeal heard under the ultra vires Detained Fast Track Rules 2005.
• R (Mir) v SSHD [2020] UKAITUR JR/818/2016: Judicial review of the SSHD’s decision to revoke indefinite leave to remain due to deception when obtaining leave.
• S2 v SSHD [2020] UKSIAC SC 128: S2 appealed decision to exclude him on the basis that he posed a threat to national security. Appeal dismissed by SIAC.
• QA v SSHD (2020): Appeal to refuse naturalisation as a British citizen due to association with Islamist extremists.
• Pham v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 2064: High profile appeal, which has been heard in the Supreme Court (Pham v SSHD [2015] UKSC 19), concerning the SSHD’s powers to deprive individuals of British citizenship.
• S2 v SSHD [2018] EWHC 993 (Admin): Judicial review raising novel issues about when the SSHD can revoke an individual’s indefinite leave to remain on the basis of national security, and the court’s discretion to grant interim relief in such cases.
• R (NM) v SSHD [2017] EWHC 2798 (Admin): Sole counsel in a complex trafficking claim involving a 3-day hearing before the High Court.
• R (Nawaz) v SSHD [2017] UKUT 288 (IAC): Sole counsel in a judicial review challenge arising out of the ETS language testing fraud.
• R (Siddique) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 570: Sole counsel in proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Natasha successfully argued that the SSHD acted lawfully in refusing to issue an appealable removal decision to the Appellant. The Court of Appeal praised parties’ ‘helpful and realistic’ submissions.
• R (Adesanya) v SSHD [2016] EWHC 1165 (Admin): Sole counsel in judicial review proceedings involving issues of people trafficking, unlawful detention, deportation and certification of human rights claims.
• SSHD v AG: Sole counsel for AG in a substantive appeal arising out of deportation proceedings. The Upper Tribunal subsequently refused the SSHD’s appeal and praised Natasha’s ‘able and concise submissions’ in their written determination.