Brenda has a busy immigration and public law practice and accepts instructions on both a publicly and privately funded basis. She regularly represents individuals in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-Tier and Upper Tribunals in asylum and immigration appeals, human rights claims, deportation appeals, judicial reviews and bail applications. She also advises on and acts in judicial reviews and urgent interim relief applications in the High Court.
Following over a decade of working and volunteering in human rights organisations in the UK, Poland, Greece and the US, Brenda is particularly skilled at assisting vulnerable clients with experiences of complex trauma.
Due to her diverse professional experience, Brenda is also particularly interested in matters at the intersection of civil and public law, with a focus on claims against public authorities. She represents Claimants in matters including claims for damages for unlawful detention, civil penalty notice appeals, data protection breaches, claims relating to personal injury and cross border matters.
Brenda regularly delivers seminars on matters relating to asylum and immigration law. Her recent webinar on “Afghan clients: quasi refugee routes and issues in contemporary asylum claims” can be accessed on Free Movement. She is also a contributing author and panel member of the LexisNexis Immigration Law panel.
Brenda is fluent in Polish and holds a Masters of Law (Magister Prawa) degree from the University of Wroclaw; she is happy to accept instructions in Polish.
Prior to the Bar, Brenda gained a diverse professional experience in immigration, human rights and financial services. She completed an LL.M. at Columbia Law School as a Human Rights Fellow, where she received a Best-in-Class award for the Human Rights course with Professor Sarah Cleveland and Amal Clooney. During her LL.M, Brenda was able to pursue her academic interests in immigration law, critical race theory, and business and human rights.
Brenda has a longstanding relationship as a volunteer with Bail for Immigration Detainees and she continues representing its clients in bail applications, deportation appeals and asylum support appeals. She also undertakes pro bono work with a number of other organisations, including the Windrush Justice Clinic. During her time as a 2025 Pegasus Scholar, Brenda volunteered with Stowarzyszenie Interwencji Prawnej (the Association for Legal Intervention) in Poland, where she assisted asylum seekers stranded at the Polish-Belarusian border.
Brenda’s other interests include human rights advocacy, racial justice, LGBTQ+ rights, as well as public and private international law. She has been involved with a number of social justice organisations and movements as a campaigner and organiser.
Civil Barrister
Brenda’s civil practice focuses of representing Claimants in actions against public authorities in matters at the intersection of civil and immigration law, including unlawful detention claims. She frequently represents Appellants challenging the imposition of civil penalties in relation to carrier’s liability and allegations of employing individuals with no right to work in the UK.
Notable Cases
Sedico Logistics Sp. Z o.o. v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 222 (KB)
Acting via direct access, Brenda represented a Polish company in its High Court appeal against the refusal of its application to strike out the SSHD’s claim for leave to sell one of its vehicles, detained because of non-payment of a civil penalty under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
Jen and Jamie Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCC 41, [2025] 7 WLUK 288
Brenda represented the Appellant in one of the only reported Civil Penalty Notice Appeals. The appeal related to the imposition of fines regarding the work of two alleged unpaid workers. Despite finding the Appellant’s witnesses credible and accepting the applicability of the relevant employment law principles, the Judge dismissed the appeal on all grounds. Contrary to recent practice of other County Courts, the Judge also found that he does not have the discretion to consider matters outside of the Code of Practice.
Brenda was instructed to continue representing the Appellant before the Court of Appeal; Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Singh granted the Appellant permission to appeal regarding the issue of judicial discretion. The Court of Appeal will consider whether the Judge erred in law by determining that he is not entitled to have regard to matters outside of the Code of Practice, while considering the level of penalty.
Immigration and Public Law Barrister
Brenda’s practice encompasses all aspects of immigration and asylum, and related public law challenges. She regularly represents individuals in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal in asylum appeals, immigration appeals, human rights claims, deportation appeals, bail applications and case management hearings.
She is also experienced in undertaking judicial reviews and pursuing urgent interim relief applications in the Upper Tribunal and the High Court.
Notable Cases
XX v Secretary of State for the Home Department (unreported)
Secured permission to judicially review SSHD decisions relating to the attempted removal of a vulnerable Applicant (A) to the US. Brenda was instructed to prepare the Statement of Facts and Grounds and to represent A at the subsequent permission hearing at the UT. She successfully argued that that the SSHD never disclosed why, or on what basis, the transfer of A’s care under s.48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was aborted. She stressed the significance of this bar to deportation under s.33 of the 2007 UK Borders Act, which the SSHD was bound to consider prior to setting removal directions.
In her submissions Brenda also demonstrated how the failure to consider existing medical evidence, in conjunction with A’s new country evidence, and the preparation of the medico-legal report, amounted to a failure to exercise anxious scrutiny while considering A’s further submissions. The UT Judge was persuaded that it was at least arguable that A’s new evidence, taken together with previously considered material, created a realistic prospect of success. Judicial review permission was granted on all grounds.
AP v Secretary of State of the Home Department, (unreported)
Represented an Azerbaijani political dissident in their successful asylum appeal before the FTT. Prior to an initial adjourned hearing, Brenda prepared a Country Schedule, summarising relevant objective evidence, which corroborated the Appellant’s account of the persecution faced by members of his political party. Following Brenda’s representations regarding the relevance of the decision granting refugee status to the Appellant’s witness, and the SSHD’s approach to internal relocation in a case relating to a fear of persecution by state authorities, the SSHD was directed to conduct a further review.
Having secured a concession regarding the question of internal relocation in the second review, Brenda successfully represented the Appellant at his substantive appeal. The credibility of the Appellant’s account was corroborated by his witness and the evidence summarised in the Country Schedule, and his appeal was granted on asylum and human rights grounds.
BNK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (unreported)
Secured permission to judicially review the delay in considering the referral of several vulnerable Afghans under the Separated Families Pathway of the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (“ACRS”). Permission was granted on the grounds that it is arguable that the Secretary of State’s decision to consider all referrals made under this scheme in date order may be unlawful. The Respondent’s grounds of resistance did not indicate a discretion to consider referrals out of date order. Brenda’s submissions also demonstrated that considering all referrals under this scheme in a strict date order is arguably irrational and inconsistent with the Respondent’s obligations under s. 55 of the 2009 Act, as particularly vulnerable children should be given priority. The matter was subsequently settled by consent.
MA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Case No: UI-2025-000713
Successfully represented a bisexual Pakistani Appellant in their error of law appeal at the UT. Brenda successfully argued that the FTT Judge materially erred in his assessment of the Appellant’s credibility – despite referring to the lower standard of proof, the Judge applied a higher standard while assessing core aspects of the Appellant’s claim. The UTJ accepted that the “the judge looked through his own prism of what was reasonable without considering what a bisexual man from Pakistan might reasonably do”. The UTJ was satisfied that the FTTJ’s repeated requirement of corroborative evidence amounted to a material error of law.
The FTT decision was set aside in its entirety, as the Upper Tribunal found that no findings of fact could be preserved. Brenda subsequently represented the Appellant at the remitted FTT hearing, where the credibility of his account was accepted. The appeal was allowed on asylum and human rights grounds.
ZG v Secretary of State for the Home Department, (unreported)
Successfully represented a vulnerable asylum-seeking client in an urgent out of hours interim relief application preventing their removal to China. The interim relief order, granted on the papers, enabled the client to issue an application for permission to judicially review the Home Office’s last-minute decision to reject her further submissions.
Brenda was instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors in relation to both the urgent interim relief and judicial review applications; the matter was subsequently settled.
MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department (unreported)
Assisted a vulnerable Albanian victim of trafficking in securing international protection. Following Brenda’s detailed submissions regarding the relevant country evidence, the Appellant and her children were granted refugee status by the FTT.
LL v Secretary of State for the Home Department (unreported)
Instructed to represent a Sudanese asylum seeker in a judicial review application, challenging the decision to accommodate them several hours away from a university where the Applicant was completing their postgraduate degree. Assisted the client in securing a settlement, and a relocation allowing them to continue their studies, while awaiting the outcome of their international protection claim.
NAA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Case No: UI-2025-000444
Represented an Iraqi asylum seeker in a successful error of law appeal before the Upper Tribunal. The FTT decision was set aside, as it was found that the FTT’s credibility assessment involved several material errors of law.
KM v Secretary of State for the Home Department (unreported)
Following a pro bono instruction from BID, Brenda provided advice in relation to the preparation of this vulnerable, elderly Bangladeshi national’s deportation appeal. Brenda assisted with drafting the relevant letters of instruction for the mental health, capacity and country experts, and represented the client in an application seeking the appointment of a Litigation Friend. After representing the client at two case management hearings, Brenda drafted the ASA and the Country Schedule, ahead of representing the client at his deportation appeal. The client’s appeal was allowed on human rights grounds, due to the very compelling circumstances of the case, including his serious health risks, the decades spent in the UK, the very significant obstacles to integration into Bangladesh for someone in his condition, and the fact that his only support network remains in the UK.
AA, BO and TO v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Case Nos: UI-2025-001061, UI-2025-001063, UI-2025-001062
Represented a vulnerable Nigerian widow and her two young children in their successful asylum appeal in the FTT. The family were initially granted international protection due to a risk of FGM. Brenda also successfully represented the family in the SSHD’s appeal in the UT, where it was held that the FTT decision shall stand, as it did not involve a material error of law.
FY v Secretary of State for the Home Department, (unreported)
Brenda represented a young Mauritian client, who was brought to the UK as a child, in their international protection appeal in the FTT. Following detailed submissions regarding the client’s lack of support network and the general humanitarian and human rights situation in his country of origin, the appeal was allowed on humanitarian protection and human rights grounds.
