Frances Allen

Frances Allen

Call: 1995

Interested in instructing Ms Allen?

Please call 020 7353 6802 or complete the form below:

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Frances has practised in immigration and asylum law since qualifying having been attracted to the work because of her strong stance on human rights. She also represents interested persons at coroners’ inquests.

In suitable cases Frances will undertake direct access work directly for members of the public.

Interested in instructing Ms Allen?

Please call 020 7353 6802 or complete the form below:

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Immigration Barrister

Frances has considerable experience and knowledge of all areas of immigration and asylum law and has advised, drafted grounds and represented at all levels.

In May 2017 she was appointed co-author of the Immigration Law Handbook 10th edition.

She is meticulous in her preparation, which is the foundation for her frequent successes. She fights for her clients often thinking ‘outside the box’ but will always give realistic advice on the chances of success.

Her integrity and commitment to her work was recognised when she was asked to join a member of the fact-finding mission sent by the Parliamentary Human Rights Group to Pakistan in October 2006. The report entitled Parliamentary Human Rights Group Report: “Rabwah: A place for Martyrs” was published on 26 January 2007 and is reported on EIN (Electronic Immigration network) under country and human rights reports. The report formed the basis for the immigration tribunal’s country guidance case of IA and Others (Ahmadis: Rabwah) Pakistan CG [2007] UKAIT 00088 (see also Secretary of State for the Home Department v IA (Pakistan) [2008] EWCA Civ 580).

Notable Cases

  • The Queen (on the application of Oluwaseun Oni Ogundipe) v SSHD (JR/12489/16): Challenge by the applicant to the decision of the SSHD to certify the applicant’s human rights claim as clearly unfounded under section 94(2). Issue was the lack of reasoning and/or analysis in the decision to certify. Following the grant of permission  on 4 May 2017 at Field House, the Respondent agreed to withdraw the section 94(2) certificate.
  • The Queen (on the application of Ali Katabazi) v SSHD (JR/9500/16): Judicial Review permission hearing on 12 April 2017 at Field House – permission granted on all grounds. Challenge by the applicant to the decision of the SSHD to grant the applicant 5 years leave to remain as a refugee and not indefinite leave to remain. Issue is the application of Article 20(3) of the Qualification Directive and the Respondent’s policy on vulnerable individuals.
  • The Queen (on the application of Ismailov) v SSHD (JR/3660/2016): Listed for substantive hearing on 25 January 2017 at Field House. Challenge by the applicant to the decision of the SSHD to certify the applicant’s human rights claim under s94(2) as clearly unfounded. Application for Judicial Review refused but leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal granted in light of the case of Paposhvili and the impact on the cases of N v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 296, as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in GS (India) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] 1 WLR 3312.
  • The Queen (on the application of Sydney Gerald Osei-Akoto) v FTT (SSHD was an interested party) (JR/5332/2016): Rolled up permission and substantive hearing on 31 October 2016 at Field House. Challenge by the applicant to the decision of a FTTJ to grant the SSHD an extension of time to apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Permission granted and application for judicial review granted. The decision of the FTTJ to grant the SSHD an extension of time to appeal was quashed. Further to written submissions a costs decision promulgated on 27 February 2016, awarded the applicant costs from the issue of JR proceedings.
  • Muthulimgam Kishnamenan & 50 Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2016): Application to set aside determinations heard under the Immigration (Fast Track Procedure) Rules (FTR) 2005. Applications adjourned pending a ruling in the High Court on the lawfulness of the 2005 FTR.
  • AA (Upper Tribunal-review power) Uzbekistan [2015] UKUT 00330 (IAC): Setting guidance on the Tribunal’s power to review its own decision under the Procedure Rules.
  • NP (Sri Lanka) v The Secretary Of State For The Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 975: Challenge by the applicant to the Tribunal’s consideration of documentary evidence and the impact on credibility.
  • The Queen (on the application of Prenga, Jaku & Khaled) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 605 (Admin): Challenge by the Claimants to the SSHD’s consideration of their fresh claims and the effect of the Legacy Programme on such claims.

Inquests Barrister

In this arena, Frances is dedicated to the rigorous search for the answers, which bereaved families need in order to comprehend their loss, particularly where agents of the state have been involved in the death.

Barrister Portfolio close
Barrister Call CV Email

Remove All


Click here to email this list of barrister to a colleague.


Save barrister