Our People

Shuyeb Muquit (1998)

Teams

Crime, Immigration, International Human Rights, and Public Law

Education

1985-1992 - King Edward VI Grammar School

1992-1995 - London School of Economics [Bsc]

1995-1996 - University of Birmingham [CPE]

1997-1998 - BPP, London [BVC]

Shuyeb was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1998 by the Inner Temple.

Practice

Shuyeb is a Barrister with over 12 years experience specialising in Public and Administrative law, with particular expertise in immigration and nationality law and the elements of cases engaging human rights issues. He has represented clients, including both private individuals as well as representative organisations, in all tiers of the Tribunal and up to the Administrative Court and the Court of Appeal. Shuyeb has also established a successful specialist criminal defence practice, focusing on immigration related criminal law, as well as offences involving fraud in various contexts.

Recent Work

Shuyeb was junior counsel acting on behalf of the Claimant in Jeffers v The Labour Party [2011] EWHC 529 (QB) [[2011] All ER (D) 137 (Mar)] challenging the control exercised by the Labour Party over the internal administration of one of its affiliate organisations.

On 17/01/11 Shuyeb appeared on behalf of the appellant in R v MA [2011] EWCA Crim 55 [R v Anser - [2011] All ER (D) 91 (Jan)] in respect of an appeal against a sentence of 12 months imprisonment for facilitating a breach of Immigration Law, an offence contrary to section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended). The Court [Pill LJ, Owen J and the Recorder of Dover] allowed the appeal and reduced the custodial sentence by two-thirds, to a term of 4 months, with the result that Shuyeb's client was immediately released and not subjected to automatic deportation. This case was the first case since Van Bin Le and Stark [1999] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 422, itself decided over 12 years previously, to address the appropriate sentence for unlawful immigration facilitation as now defined.

On 25/02/11 Shuyeb appeared on behalf of the applicant PE before the Court of Appeal in respect of his renewed application seeking permission to appeal a 12 month sentence of imprisonment for gaining pecuniary advantage by illegal employment. The Court [McKay and Sweeney JJ] granted permission to appeal and went on to allow the appeal, reducing the custodial sentence by a third, to a term of 8 months, with the result that PE would be released the next day and also not subject to automatic deportation. In so doing the Court of Appeal accepted the argument that though PE had admitted to, and was to be sentenced in respect of, offences under the Theft/Fraud Acts, guideline cases dealing with offences of using false documents in the immigration context actually set the appropriate sentencing yardstick in PE's kind of case [and amounts earned in the course of such offending were irrelevant].

Other Notable Cases

Some of Shuyeb's Reported cases include:

Sathiyaseelan v SSHD [2002] EWCA Civ 1244

Early decision of the Court of Appeal [Walker and Keene LJJ, as they then were] recognising that subjective anguish could result in breach of Article 3 ECHR even without extant objective well founded fear.

R on the application of Sritharan [2003] EWHC 181 (Admin)

First challenge before High Court [Sullivan J as he then was] to the Home Office's approach to the issue of risk for Sri Lankan asylum seekers arriving during the ceasefire.

R on the application of Campbell [2003] EWHC 2681 (Admin)

Most senior decision [Maurice Kay J as he then was] addressing a case seeking to establish the doctrine of substantial compliance in the context of form filling.

A (Ethiopia) [2003] UKIAT 00103 "Reported"

Guidance to Immigration Judges as to the use of Interpreters so as to conform with requirements of procedural fairness.

OI (Late reliance on fresh evidence) Somalia [2004] UKIAT00196 "Reported"

SA (Pragmatism – No basis for decision – Paragraph 206 HC 395) Saudi Arabia [2005] UKIAT00007 "Reported"

GS (Article 8 - public interest not a fixity) Serbia and Montenegro [2005] UKAIT 00121 "Reported"

One of the first Article 8 decisions to emphasise that "public interest" was not to be regarded as a factor which carried determinative weight in every case in which it constituted a relevant consideration or even that it carried the same weight in any case.

IB (Ghana) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 146

Upper Tribunal's decision to overturn decision of Lower Tribunal allowing Shuyeb's client's appeal against deportation itself overturned on appeal to Court of Appeal [following the grant of permission on renewal by Moore-Bick and Richards LJJ].

SA (Kuwait) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 1157

First case of the Court of Appeal [Ward, Sedley and Smith LJJ] to qualify the Tanveer Ahmed principles on the approach to documentary evidence in the immigration context.

Shuyeb was junior Counsel in the Cambridge College test case. He was also Counsel on behalf of "The Madame of the West End", successfully defending against the proposed immigration deportation of one of the most prolific brothel owners to have been convicted by a criminal court in the United Kingdom, and who was a failed asylum seeker.

Shuyeb has been involved in very many actions before the Court of Appeal and High Court which have mostly settled without resolution being necessary by the Courts upon grants of permission.

On 02/06/10 Shuyeb secured permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the case of OO (Nigeria) v SSHD upon the argument that one of the effects of delay in decision making by the SSHD should be the introduction of something akin to a species of estoppel, whereby the SSHD is prevented from relying on article 8(2) justification for interfering with private life, namely the promotion of efficient immigration control. This case was settled by Consent upon the basis that all levels of the Tribunal had erred and that Shuyeb's client was entitled to, and would be granted, ILR.

On 24/11/10, Shuyeb took over the case of AA (Pakistan) and secured permission from the Court of Appeal [Longmore LJ] to move for Judicial Review the SSHD's refusal to treat AA's representations as a 'Fresh Claim' as defined by the Immigration Rules. AA was an individual seriously discredited by findings made by an earlier Tribunal and whose assertion that he had made a fresh claim, by way of further evidence of the nature already considered previously, had been rejected by no less than three High Court Judges and a Judge of the Court of Appeal. The substantive case is now reported as R (on the application of AA) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 443, which Shuyeb lost, but not without a fight.

Commendations

"I found Shuyeb to be a brave, imaginative and intelligent advocate whose extreme enthusiasm for the law is matched by his unrelenting concern for the interests of his client. Certainly a practitioner to watch out for"

- Manjit Gill QC

"I have recently led Shuyeb in a test case immigration appeal. I was impressed by his knowledge of immigration law and by his industry and hard work. I have no doubt he will go far"

- Ian Macdonald QC

Memberships

He is also an Honorary member of the Lupus Elyse team.

Direct Access

Shuyeb is also able to take instructions directly from members of the public without a solicitor or adviser under the Bar Council’s Public Access scheme.