Anastasia represented a number of families who wished to reunite in the UK but were unable to enrol biometrics due to being in warzones, and were thereby barred from making visa applications. Following judicial review proceedings, the SSHD exercised flexibility regarding biometric enrolment and the applicants were able to apply for visas and ultimately reunite with their families in the UK. Many of these cases were urgent, with the applicants being in exceptionally dangerous situations; and involved highly technical evidence about biometric enrolment and travel to the UK. 

Anastasia represented a number of clients, including unaccompanied children, who wished to join family in the UK under the Dublin III family reunion provisions which applied prior to Brexit. Following judicial review proceedings, the SSHD agreed to admit the applicants to the UK to reunite with their families. 

Anastasia also represented families in numerous successful entry clearance appeals before the First-Tier Tribunal. Most of her cases were evidentially heavy, involving multiple expert reports and witness statements outlining the applicants’ circumstances and impact of separation. Many of the appeals were urgent, with the Tribunal granting expedition. 

Anastasia also supported applicants to overcome various practical obstacles to applying for visas and travelling to the UK, working with UNHCR and other NGOs. She represented clients in their asylum claims and settlement applications and advocated for them to receive support on arrival to the UK.

Anastasia was the instructing solicitor in the following Upper Tribunal judicial review claims:

• R (HS & Ors) v SSHD JR-2024-LON-000457: A family (a wife and four children) facing imminent death risk in Gaza sought to reunite with their husband/father (HS), a refugee in the UK. The SSHD refused to decide their entry clearance applications, because they were unable to enrol biometrics in Gaza as the Visa Application Centre was closed due to the war. The decision refusing to decide their entry clearance applications was challenged in highly expedited judicial review proceedings. On 5 March 2024, the same day as the full hearing in the claim, the Upper Tribunal quashed the Home Office decisions, found they breached Article 8 ECHR (the right to family and private life) and ordered that the SSHD decide the entry clearance applications within 2 days. The SSHD, however, failed to comply with that Order. Following out of hours enforcement proceedings in the High Court, where it was found that the SSHD was prima facie in contempt of court, the SSHD made a decision to grant visas the following day. The family were then evacuated from Gaza by the Foreign Office and reunited with HS in the UK. The court orders and out of hours ruling are available here. The judgment is here. BBC News coverage is here and here. Announcement here.
• R (RM & Ors) v SSHD JR-2024-LON-000082: A family (parents and two children) facing imminent death risk in Gaza sought to join their daughter/sister in the UK. The SSHD refused to decide their applications for entry clearance because they were unable to give biometrics in Gaza. Following highly expedited judicial review proceedings, the Upper Tribunal quashed the Home Office decisions, found they breached Article 8 ECHR and ordered that the SSHD ‘pre-determine’ the family’s entry clearance applications (i.e. make a decision on whether to grant entry subject to enrolment of biometrics). The Tribunal also declared parts of the SSHD’s policy on biometric enrolment to be unlawful, resulting in substantial amendments being made to the policy. The family were granted visas and reunited in the UK. The court order is here. The judgment is here. Guardian coverage is here. Announcement here.
• R (MA) v SSHD JR/1265/2020: this case concerned the UK’s family reunion obligations under the EU Dublin III system, which applied prior to Brexit. MA was a vulnerable child from Somalia who sought family reunion with his second cousin, a British  citizen in the UK. MA fled Somalia, entered Greece and claimed asylum. In a judgment handed down on 10 December 2020, the Upper Tribunal found that the Home Office’s decisions to refuse requests by Greece for the UK to take charge of MA’s asylum claim were unlawful as they breached MA’s rights to private and family life under Article 8 ECHR, and Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Following the judgment, MA was reunited with his second cousin in the UK. In a subsequent Upper Tribunal judgment, MA was awarded £10,500 for breaches of his Article 8 rights. The December 2020 Upper Tribunal judgment is here. The damages judgment is available here. Announcement here.

Anastasia also had conduct of public law challenges and civil claims in respect of immigration detention. In one case, she secured an order for her client’s release from immigration detention within 24 hours, by way of interim relief.

Anastasia also has experience of community care challenges on behalf of migrants with no recourse to public funds. She represented a number of destitute migrants who suffered from serious health conditions, securing urgent accommodation and care from Local Authorities. She successfully represented a teenaged client in an age dispute, with the Local Authority accepting his age and agreeing to treat him retrospectively as a Former Relevant Child. She also represented several young migrant care leavers in securing accommodation from Local Authorities.