Julian Norman

Julian Norman is an experienced immigration barrister who has specialised in immigration law since 2002. Having worked in private practice for ten years before qualifying as a solicitor in 2007, she was called to the Bar in 2012. She is Joint Head of Goldsmith Chambers’ Immigration Team and is recognised in the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners for her immigration practice.

Julian has extensive experience across all aspects of immigration, asylum and human rights law, including asylum appeals, judicial review, deportation, trafficking and modern slavery, family migration and Article 8 claims. She has particular interests in neurodiversity in immigration and asylum proceedings, LGBT+ asylum and human rights claims, and cases involving Russia and the wider post-Soviet region.

Julian is recommended in the Legal 500 2027 edition, Tier 4 Immigration – “Fantastic knowledge of immigration law. Smart and reliable. Very pleasant to work with.”

Julian is also recommended in Chambers & Partners 2027 edition, Tier 5 Immigration – “Julian Norman is very collaborative and empathetic.”

Her practice combines substantial experience in complex immigration litigation with a particular interest in cases where an individual’s personal circumstances, vulnerability, family relationships or experiences of persecution require careful and sensitive assessment.

Areas of Specialism

Neurodiversity in Immigration and Asylum Law

Julian is developing a particular specialism in immigration and asylum claims involving neurodivergent individuals. She is interested in the ways in which neurodiversity may be relevant to the assessment of evidence, credibility and vulnerability, and to the fair determination of immigration and human rights claims.

Her interest extends across a range of contexts, including trafficking and modern slavery, Article 8 family life claims, and deportation proceedings. This includes cases in which neurodivergence may affect an individual’s ability to communicate their experiences, engage with decision-makers, give an account of events, or access the support they require.

Julian is particularly interested in the interaction between neurodivergence, the assessment of expert and other evidence, and the legal consequences of removal from the United Kingdom. Her recent Upper Tribunal work includes Axhami v Secretary of State for the Home Department and GNY v Secretary of State for the Home Department, both of which concerned the relevance of autism, support needs and vulnerability in human rights proceedings.

Gender Based Violence / LGBT+ Claims

Julian has a particular interest in asylum and human rights claims involving sexual orientation, gender identity and sex-based persecution. She has experience of cases in which the treatment of LGBT+ individuals in their country of origin, the assessment of their evidence and the risks they may face on return are central issues. She also has significant experience in relation to claims involving sex-based persecution including honour-based violence, forced marriage and domestic abuse.

Her work includes complex appeals involving the distinction between sexual orientation and gender identity, the assessment of country background evidence, sufficiency of state protection, internal relocation and the application of the principles in HJ (Iran).

In RI v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004512, Julian represented a transgender woman from the Philippines in an appeal involving protection and Article 8 family life claims. The Upper Tribunal found material errors of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s assessment of risk on return, including its treatment of gender identity, country background evidence and the principles in HJ (Iran). The Tribunal also identified material errors in the Article 8 assessment, set aside the decision and remitted the appeal for a fresh hearing.

Russia, Ukraine and the Post-Soviet Region

Julian has a particular interest in asylum and human rights claims arising from Russia, Ukraine and the wider post-Soviet region. Her work includes claims requiring detailed consideration of country conditions, individual risk on return and the interaction between country background evidence and the claimant’s personal circumstances.

She has been involved in significant Ukrainian asylum litigation, including PK (Ukraine) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1756 and PK and OS (basic rules of human conduct) Ukraine CG [2020] UKUT 314 (IAC).

Her practice in this area includes claims involving military service, draft evasion, armed conflict and the assessment of protection needs. She brings experience of complex asylum litigation to cases requiring careful analysis of the evidence and the relevant legal framework.

Wider Immigration and Public Law Practice

Julian has extensive experience in immigration appeals and public law challenges, including appeals to the Upper Tribunal and judicial review proceedings. Her work includes fresh claims, human rights challenges, unlawful detention, urgent applications to prevent removal, deportation appeals and cases involving the Immigration Rules.

She has substantial experience of Article 8 family and private life claims, including cases involving children, complex family relationships and the consequences of removal for vulnerable individuals. She also represents clients in trafficking and modern slavery cases, including those in which questions of vulnerability, credibility and the assessment of evidence are particularly significant.

Julian’s practice encompasses both first-instance appeals and appellate litigation. She works closely with instructing solicitors to identify the central legal issues, develop effective arguments and present complex cases clearly and persuasively.

Selected Notable Cases

Neurodivergence, Family Life and Deportation

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Axhami [2025] UKAITUR UI2024004380

Julian represented the successful appellant in the Upper Tribunal, resisting the Secretary of State’s appeal against a decision allowing a human rights appeal under Article 8 ECHR. The case concerned the impact of a parent’s removal to Albania on his British child, who had significant special educational needs, was awaiting further assessment on the autism spectrum disorder pathway, and experienced anxiety and difficulty with change.

Read the judgment

GNY v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UKAITUR UI2024000141

Julian represented the successful appellant in the Upper Tribunal, resisting the Secretary of State’s appeal against a decision allowing a human rights appeal against deportation. The case concerned an individual with autism, a history of childhood abuse and drug addiction, and significant support needs. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal, upholding the First-tier Tribunal’s decision. The case illustrates the relevance of autism, expert evidence, vulnerability and support needs in deportation proceedings and human rights claims.

Read the judgment

Gender Based Violence / LGBT+ Claims

RI v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004512

Julian represented a transgender woman from the Philippines in Upper Tribunal proceedings concerning protection and human rights claims based on gender identity and family life. The Tribunal identified material errors of law in the assessment of risk which had failed to distinguish between sexual orientation and gender identity. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the appeal remitted for a fresh hearing.

PY (Nepal) v SSHD

Julian successfully argued that “Nepali women who marry outside their caste and nationality” are a Particular Social Group for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. The appeal was allowed.

Judicial Review

R (Ghimire) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKAITUR JR2025LON2664

Julian represented the applicant in judicial review proceedings in the Upper Tribunal after his leave to remain was curtailed. The Upper Tribunal held that the SSHD had failed to take into account material considerations.

Read the judgment

Orire-Banjo, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 3516 (Admin)

This case explored the evidential and legal burden of proof in cases where nationality is disputed. The Court held that the legal burden rests with the claimant but that the evidential burden reverts to the defendant (para 18 – 19).

Read the judgment

Professional Approach

Julian is committed to providing carefully prepared, practical and effective representation in complex immigration and human rights cases. She is particularly interested in cases that require detailed engagement with country evidence, expert evidence, vulnerability and the interaction between immigration law and the fundamental rights of individuals and their families.