Ms Saifolahi has practised in the field of immigration law for over 13 years. She is well regarded for her thorough case preparation, effective advocacy and personable nature.
Ms Saifolahi is an assessor for the Law Society ‘Immigration Law Advanced’ Accreditation Scheme, which is the highest level of accreditation available within the Law Society Immigration Accreditation Scheme.
Professional clients have said that she is “excellent counsel covering a range of areas in the field of immigration law and practice. Consistently meticulous and conscientious in her work and importantly receives excellent client feed back.”
In addition, “very thorough, has empathy for clients and is able to relate to clients in such a way that they feel she makes a big difference to their case.”
Ms Saifolahi is qualified to undertake direct access work, directly from members of the public.
Interested in instructing Ms Saifolahi?
Please call 020 7353 6802 or complete the form below:
Ms Saifolahi has experience in the fields of immigration, asylum and human rights. Her passion for this area of law was cemented during an internship at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Ms Saifolahi is committed and dedicated to this field of work and to the advancement of the rights of her clients.
Whilst Ms Saifolahi is fully committed to her legal aid cases, she is also instructed by private clients, businesses, OISC, organisations and charities.
- Secretary of State for the Home Department v Banger – C-89/17 – Judgment of the CJEU
- Secretary of State for the Home Department v Banger – C-89/17 – Opinion of the Advocate-General of the CJEU
- Banger (Unmarried Partner of British National : South Africa)  UKUT 125 (IAC) (30 March 2017) – Led by Anthony Metzer QC. The questions included in the Reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union include whether the rationale in Surinder Singh applies to the unmarried partner of a British National. Furthermore, following the case of Sala the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in appeals by Extended Family Members and whether the Regulations are consistent with the Citizen’s Directive in this regard.
- Case of MB V SSHD – March 2017 at the First Tier Tribunal: successfully argued that it would be disproportionate under Article 8 for the Appellant to have to return to Mongolia to continue to conduct family litigation in relation to her minor child, who had been abducted to Singapore by the father of the child who had been made a ward of Court in the UK.
- NN v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2016): The issue in this case was whether the Tribunal had applied the correct weight to Section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 when assessing the Article 8 appeal. The Appellant arrived in the UK as a minor and had been granted leave to remain until he reached the age of majority. The Upper Tribunal accepted that the Tribunal was entitled to attach weight to the private life developed whilst the Appellant was a minor with leave to remain given and that in granting the Appellant leave, he was bound to develop his private life during these significant years.
- IE v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2016): In this asylum appeal, the Appellant was a survivor of an attempted rape in the UK at the hands of a family friend. She then claimed asylum on the basis that she had a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Bangladesh. There were issues of family honor and forced marriage following the Incident. The CPS had decided that they were not going to take the criminal case any further. This was effectively a “sur place” claim in which the Tribunal accepted that the Appellant was a Refugee. The Appellant was extremely vulnerable with mental health concerns.
- DS v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2016): The issue was whether an 86-year old widow who had entered the UK as a visitor and then made an application for leave to remain on human rights grounds could rely and succeed upon Article 8 outside of the immigration rules. The case is significant as the Tribunal accepted that despite the fact that the immigration rules do not allow for dependent relative applications to be made in country, it was found to be disproportionate to expect the Appellant to leave the UK in order to make such an application.
- OA/20572/2013 & Ors (July 2015): Successfully defended the First Tribunal determination allowing an appeal against the refusal of entry clearance of a spouse at the Upper Tribunal.
- IA/32431/2014 & Ors (April 2015): Successfully argued that the Appellant’s partner was an Extended Family Member for the purposes of the EEA Regulations before the Upper Tribunal.